The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that bail under Section 483 of the BNSS may be granted in NDPS cases where the contraband recovered is below the commercial quantity threshold and the accused is not in direct possession, but merely implicated through co-accused statements. This decision reinforces the principle that pre-trial detention must be balanced against the nature of evidence and duration of custody.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Rajuram S/o Surajaram, aged approximately 30 years, resident of Nainiya, Police Station Hada, District Bikaner, Rajasthan, was arrested in connection with FIR No. 195/2026 registered at Police Station New Mandi, Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar. The case involves alleged offences under Sections 8, 15, and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The petitioner is not the main accused but has been named as the supplier of the contraband based solely on the statements of co-accused.
Key Facts
- The contraband recovered in the case was 24.8 kg of Doda Post, a form of cannabis.
- The recovery was made from the main accused, Dinesh Kumar and Ramesh, not from the petitioner.
- The petitioner was not found in actual or constructive possession of the contraband.
- The petitioner’s involvement is alleged only through the uncorroborated statements of co-accused.
- The quantity of 24.8 kg of Doda Post is below the commercial quantity prescribed under the NDPS Act.
- The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 22.05.2026.
- The trial is expected to take a considerable period to conclude.
Procedural History
- 22.05.2026: Petitioner arrested and placed in judicial custody.
- 22.06.2026: Bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur.
- 22.06.2026: Hearing conducted by Vacation Judge, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu.
The Parties' Positions
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought bail on the grounds that:
- The quantity of contraband recovered is below commercial quantity.
- He is not in possession of the contraband.
- His involvement is based solely on the statements of co-accused.
- He has been in custody for over a month with no trial conclusion in sight.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an accused under the NDPS Act, who is not in possession of contraband and is implicated only through co-accused statements, and where the recovered quantity is below the commercial threshold, is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS pending trial.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that:
- The recovery of 24.8 kg of Doda Post is below the commercial quantity as defined under the NDPS Act.
- The petitioner was not found in possession of the contraband; it was recovered from the main accused.
- His involvement is based solely on the uncorroborated statements of co-accused, which are inherently unreliable.
- He has been in judicial custody since 22.05.2026, and the trial is likely to extend for a prolonged period.
- Granting bail would not impede the investigation, as the main accused are already in custody and the evidence is largely documentary.
- Reliance was placed on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly in cases where the gravity of the offence is mitigated by the non-commercial nature of the contraband.
For the Respondent
The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, arguing that:
- The NDPS Act is a stringent law and offences under it are serious.
- The quantity recovered, though below commercial, is still substantial.
- The petitioner’s alleged role as a supplier makes him a key conspirator.
- Granting bail may lead to tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
- No specific precedent was cited to support the claim that below-commercial-quantity cases automatically entitle an accused to bail.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the recovery, the role of the petitioner, and the duration of custody. It noted that the contraband was recovered from the main accused and not from the petitioner. The petitioner’s connection to the offence rests entirely on the statements of others, which are not substantiated by independent evidence at this stage.
"Considering the fact that the narcotic contraband recovered in this case is below commercial quantity; the petitioner is in judicial custody since 22.05.2026 and the present recovery is made from the main accused Dinesh Kumar and Ramesh of 24.8 Kgs of Doda Post; the investigation/trial will take sufficient time to conclude; without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail."
The Court emphasized that while the NDPS Act demands strict enforcement, it does not mandate automatic denial of bail where the accused is not in possession and the quantity is non-commercial. The Court also noted the prolonged period of custody without trial conclusion, which weighs heavily in favour of bail under the principle of uti possidetis juris. The Court declined to prejudge the merits of the case, but held that the conditions for bail under Section 483 BNSS were satisfied.
The Verdict
The bail application under Section 483 BNSS was allowed. The petitioner, Rajuram S/o Surajaram, shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each, to the satisfaction of the trial court. He must appear before the trial court on every hearing date and whenever called upon until the conclusion of the trial. The order is subject to the condition that he is not wanted in any other case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Below-Commercial Quantity Triggers Bail Consideration
- Practitioners may now argue that recovery below the commercial threshold under the NDPS Act, even if substantial, reduces the presumption of seriousness and supports bail.
- The mere allegation of supply without possession or corroboration is insufficient to deny bail.
Accused Implicated Only Through Co-Accused Statements
- Where an accused is named solely on the basis of statements by co-accused, and no independent evidence links them to possession or control, bail should be considered as a matter of course.
- Courts must distinguish between direct involvement and speculative implication.
Prolonged Custody Without Trial Is a Ground for Bail
- Judicial custody exceeding one month in cases with no imminent trial conclusion strengthens the bail plea.
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to demonstrate why continued detention is necessary when the accused is not in possession and the evidence is largely circumstantial.
