When contraband is recovered from separate bags belonging to different individuals, the total quantity cannot be aggregated to constitute a commercial quantity. Consequently, stringent bail conditions applicable to commercial quantities are not attracted if individual possession remains below the prescribed threshold.

ORDER :

1. The present bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS are filed by the applicants-accused 1.Satyanarayan Vaishnav Urf Maharaj Ji S/o Shri Harivallabh, 2.Smt Kajal W/o Pawan, 3.Smt. Bimla Bai W/o Surendra, 4.Smt. Mandor W/o Harish & 5.Smt. Sanju W/o Mukesh, seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.57/2026 dated 28.02.2026 registered at Police Station GRP, Kota, District Ajmer for the offence under Sections 8/20, 29 of NDPS Act.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against them is complete and they are no more required in investigation. He further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicants accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He also submits that the applicants undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate during trial, which will take time.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the co-accused Smt. Sangeeta Bai was released on bail by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court on 08.04.2026 after placing reliance upon judgment dated 02.11.2023 of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Puranmal Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal No. 3394/2023 and Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10670/2023. He further submits that this is not a case of joint recovery, as the trial Court has erroneously construed the case as joint recovery and mandated compliance of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, before grant of bail. He further submits that seizure memo itself indicate that the recovery was effected individually from individual bag of each of the accused, therefore, a joint recovery cannot be presumed. He also submits that the recovered quantity is less than commercial. He also submits that four accused persons namely Kajal, Bimla Bai, Mandor and Sanju are females. At last he submits that two accused were already released on bail by the trial Court itself.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail applications and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record.

6. On 28.02.2026, SHO GRP Ajmer has recovered different-different quantity of ganja from bags of Surendra, Pawan, Kajal, Bimla Bai, Sangeeta Bai, Mandor and Sanju. The trial Court has dismissed the bail application of Satyanarayan, Kajal, Bimla Bai, Mandor and Sanju on the ground that total quantity recovered is 22.798 kg and same is commercial. The bail application was dismissed in view of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

7. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after considering the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Puranmal Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) has allowed the bail application of Smt. Sangeeta Bai on 08.04.2026. Thereafter, the trial Court has allowed bail applications of Pawan and Surendra on 22.04.2026. The recovered quantity is less than commercial, as recovery is effected from different-different bags belonging to different different persons. The petitioner accused Satyanarayan was arrayed as an accused under Section 8/29 of NDPS Act, as the source of contraband. The provision of Section 37 of NDPS Act is not attracted in the matter.

8. Upon hearing the arguments and perusing the record, we have found that the applicants-accused are no more required in the investigation and they are in custody for quite some time. The further proceedings will take its own time, therefore, looking to entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court deems it appropriate to grant bail to the applicants-accused.

9.