The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that in cases under the NDPS Act, bail may be granted even for serious offences when there is no recovery from the accused, the investigation is complete, and co-accused have already been released on bail. This decision reinforces the principle that custody must not be prolonged without necessity, particularly where the accused poses no flight risk and is not essential to further proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Vikram Lal S/o Rama Ji @ Ramlal, aged 37, was arrested in connection with FIR No. 253/2025 registered on 29.05.2025 at Police Station Bhawani Mandi, District Jhalawar, under Sections 8 and 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The case arose from the recovery of contraband poppy straw from two co-accused, Rahul Kumar and Govind, but no contraband was recovered from the petitioner.
Key Facts
- On 29.05.2025, Sub-Inspector Dhanraj Gochar recovered 3 kg 720 grams of poppy straw from Govind and 5 kg 715 grams from Rahul Kumar.
- The petitioner and Deepak Lal were named as accused based solely on the intimation provided by Rahul Kumar and Deepak Lal.
- No recovery of any narcotic substance was made from the petitioner.
- The petitioner has no prior criminal antecedents.
- The investigation against the petitioner was kept pending under Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) while the charge-sheet was filed against Rahul Kumar and Govind.
- Rahul Kumar and Govind were granted bail by a coordinate bench of this Court on 31.07.2025.
- Deepak Lal was arrested later and granted bail on 13.03.2026 by another coordinate bench.
- The charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is pending.
- The petitioner has been in custody since his arrest and is currently confined at Sub Jail Bhawani Mandi.
Procedural History
- 29.05.2025: FIR No. 253/2025 registered at P.S. Bhawani Mandi.
- 31.07.2025: Rahul Kumar and Govind granted bail by coordinate bench.
- 13.03.2026: Deepak Lal granted bail after arrest.
- 07.05.2026: Bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
- The petitioner is not required for further investigation.
- No recovery was made from him.
- He has no criminal history.
- Co-accused Rahul Kumar, Govind, and Deepak Lal have already been released on bail.
- He undertakes to cooperate with trial and not to commit any further offence.
- He is not a flight risk and resides permanently in the same district.
For the Respondent
- The offence under Sections 8 and 15 of the NDPS Act is grave and serious.
- The nature of narcotics trafficking warrants strict detention.
- A police report was submitted opposing bail.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought bail on personal bond with sureties, with conditions to ensure his appearance and non-interference with the trial.
The Legal Issue
Whether an accused under the NDPS Act, who has no recovery against him, whose investigation is complete, and whose co-accused have already been granted bail, is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the offence?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel relied on the principle that custody is not a rule but an exception, especially where the accused is not essential to the investigation. He cited the absence of recovery, the filing of the charge-sheet against others, and the grant of bail to co-accused as compelling factors. He emphasized that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and poses no risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor contended that offences under the NDPS Act are inherently serious and attract stringent bail conditions. He argued that the gravity of the offence alone justifies continued custody, irrespective of the absence of recovery or completion of investigation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the factual matrix and found that the petitioner’s role, if any, is peripheral. The recovery was exclusively from two co-accused, and the charge-sheet has already been filed. The investigation against the petitioner has been formally kept pending under Section 193(9) of BNSS, indicating his non-essentiality to further probe.
"The applicant-accused is no more required in the investigation and he is in custody for quite some time. The further proceedings will take its own time."
The Court noted that two co-accused, including one arrested after the petitioner, have already been granted bail. The absence of any recovery from the petitioner, coupled with his clean record and residence within the jurisdiction, negates any apprehension of flight or tampering. The Court held that the seriousness of the offence cannot override the procedural fairness and the principle of proportionality in bail jurisprudence.
The Court further observed that the grant of bail to co-accused under identical circumstances creates a parity principle that cannot be ignored without compelling reasons, none of which were advanced by the prosecution.
The Verdict
The bail application is allowed. The petitioner, Vikram Lal S/o Rama Ji @ Ramlal, is ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. He shall: (i) not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses; (ii) not commit any further offence; (iii) appear before the Trial Court on all dates fixed; and (iv) risk cancellation of bail upon violation. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court via email.
What This Means For Similar Cases
No Recovery Is a Strong Ground for Bail in NDPS Cases
- Practitioners must highlight absence of recovery as a decisive factor, even in serious NDPS cases.
- Courts are increasingly recognizing that mere inclusion in FIR without physical evidence does not justify prolonged custody.
- Bail applications should be supported by affidavits confirming no recovery and no criminal antecedents.
Parity Among Co-Accused Is Legally Significant
- When co-accused are granted bail under similar factual circumstances, denial of bail to another accused becomes arbitrary.
- The principle of equal treatment under Article 14 applies to bail decisions.
- Counsel should file a list of co-accused granted bail with dates and orders as annexures.
Investigation Completion Triggers Reassessment of Custody
- Once the charge-sheet is filed and investigation is closed against an accused under Section 193(9) BNSS, continued custody lacks legal justification.
- Courts must examine whether the accused is still needed for interrogation or evidence collection.
- Applications under Section 483 BNSS should be framed around the completion of investigation and non-essentiality of custody.
