Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 9510
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Yogendra Kumar Purohit, J
Sunil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 5339/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R.K. Bishnoi
For the Respondents: Narendra Gehlot
In cases involving a commercial quantity of contraband under the NDPS Act, the court cannot grant bail under Section 37 unless there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail, irrespective of the duration of custody.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 37 - Grant of bail - Stringent provisions - In cases involving commercial quantity of contraband, court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any further offence while on bail - Merely being in judicial custody for a long duration or the filing of a charge sheet is not a ground for grant of bail under Section 37 when commercial quantity is involved and evidence of complicity exists. (Paras 05-08, 16-18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a second bail application under Section 439 CrPC (483 BNSS) regarding an offence under the NDPS Act. The prosecution presented evidence of recovered contraband (210 kg poppy husk) from a co-accused, coupled with call data records (CDR) and WhatsApp voice call logs indicating continuous communication between the petitioner and the co-accused regarding the supply of the contraband.
Findings of Court:
The court found that prima facie evidence existed connecting the petitioner to the supply chain of a commercial quantity of contraband. Following settled legal precedents, the court held that the restrictive criteria of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not satisfied, and thus, the bail application was rejected.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the recovery of a commercial quantity of poppy husk and the existence of evidence linking him to the co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The legislative mandate under Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes a rigorous burden on the accused to demonstrate reasonable grounds for their innocence in cases of commercial quantity, transcending the general considerations of custody period or trial progress.
Result: Second bail application dismissed.
Order
Arguments Concluded on 18/03/2026
Order Reserved on 18/03/2026
Full order Pronounced
Date of Pronouncement 24/03/2026
01- izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls tekur dk ;g f}rh; vkosnu i= vUrxZr /kkjk 439 n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ¼483 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk½] iqfyl Fkkuk yk sgkoV] ftyk QykSnh e sa ntZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 69@2024] vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 8@15] 29 ,u-Mh-ih-,l- ,DV ds ekey s e sa tekur ij fjgk fd, tkus dh izkFkZuk ds lkFk izLrqr gqvk gSA
02- cgl tekur vkosnu i= ij lquh rFkk miyC/k vfHky s[k dk voyk sdu fd;kA
03- izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh vk sj ls ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k gS fd bl ekey s e sa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls izLrqr izFke tekur dk izkFkZuk i= vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ds c;ku gk s tkus ds i'pkr iqu% tekur vkosnu i= i s'k djus dh Lor a=rk ds lkFk fnukad 11-12-2024 dk s tfj;s uksV izsl [kkfjt fd;k x;k FkkA vc bl ekeys e sa vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ds c;ku crkSj xokg ih-MCY; w-01 jke s'oj n;ky gks pqds gSaA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks fnukad 09-05-2024 dk s fxjQ~rkj dj U;k;ky; e sa is'k fd;k x;k Fkk] rc ls og yxkrkj U;kf;d vfHkj{kk e sa py jgk gSA izdj.k ds fopkj.k e sa le; yxus dh laHkkouk gSA vr% bl vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks tekur ij fjgk fd, tku s dk fuosnu fd;kA
04- fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd }kjk bldk l[r fojks/k djrs gq, ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k x;k fd bl ekey s e sa cjken'kqnk vkfVZdy lg&vfHk;qDr ls cjken gqvk Fkk] tks dqy Mk sMk iksLr 210 fdyksxzke ds gSa vkSj izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr vkSj lg&vfHk;qDr 'kdqj [kk a ftll s fd cjkenxh gqbZ gSa] ds e/; OgkV~l,i okWbl dkWy ls yxkrkj ckrphr gk sus o dkWy yksd s'ku izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds gksu s ckcr~ i;kZIr lk{; i=koyh ij gSA vr% bl ekeys e sa /kkjk 37 dh viokfnr ifjfLFkfr;ka fo|eku ugha gksuk crkrs gq, tekur dk izkFkZuk&i= [kkfjt fd, tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA
05- eSaus mi;qZDr rdkZsa ij euu fd;k rFkk i=koyh dk lko/kkuhiwoZd voyk sdu fd;kA loZizFke fof/kd fLFkfr ij bl ekeys e sa fopkj fd;k tk jgk gSA /kkjk 37 ¼1½¼ch½ ,u-Mh-ih-,l- ,DV e sa fuEukuqlkj izko/kku fd;k x;k gS fd%&
"37. Offences to be cognizable and nonbailable.—
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), —
(a) ------
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for [offences under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless—
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail."
06- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa Hkkjr la?k cuke jkeleq> o vU; 1999 ¼9½ ,l-lh-lh- 429] Union of India Vs Rattan Mallik @ Habul 2009(1) Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 10: ¿ 2009 ¼2½ ,l-lh-lh- 624À] Hkkjr la?k cuke fu;ktqnhu] ,l- ds- ,oa vU; 2018¼1½ Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 283: ¿ 2018 ¼13½ ,l-lh-lh- 738À o State of Kerala Vs Rajesh 2020(1) Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 106 % ¿ ¼2020½ 12 ,l-lh-lh- 122À e sa /kkjk 37 ,u-Mh ih-,l- ,DV dh O;k[;k dh xbZ gS vkSj ;g Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd /kkjk 37 ¼1½¼ch½¼ii½ e sa tks viokn fn, x, gSa] mlds fy, fjtuscy xzkm.M gksuk vko';d gSA mlh voLFkk e sa tekur ij fjgk fd;k tk ldrk gS vU;Fkk tekur ij fjgk ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ;g ekeyk Hkh okf.kfT;d ek=k ls lac af/kr gksuk v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ekuk xk;k gS] tk s mfpr gSA
07- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds rhu ekuuh; U;k;kf/kifrx.k dh ihB ds fu.kZ; Narcotics Control Bureau Versus Mohit Aggarwal, AIR 2022 S.C. 3444 ds ekeys e sa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds iwoZ ds rhu ekuuh; U;k;kf/kifrx.k dh ihB ds fu.kZ; Collector of Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodir (2004) 3 SCC 549 o ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds vkn s'k e sa of.kZr State of Kerala Vs Rajesh (2020)12 SCC 122 ij fopkj djrs gq, iSjk la[;k 11] 14] 15 o 18 e sa fuEukuqlkj mfYyf[kr fd;k x;k gS%&
11. It is evident from a plain reading of the non obstante clause inserted in sub-section (1) and the conditions imposed
