Case Note & Summary
The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur considered three connected bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by accused persons facing trial for offences under Sections 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The case arose from FIR No.450/2023 registered at Police Station Nohar, District Hanumangarh, following a police blockade on 28.09.2023, where 80 kg of poppy husk was recovered from a black Scorpio car occupied by two applicants and 67 kg of poppy husk from a silver Innova car occupied by the third applicant and a co-accused. The accused had been in judicial custody for about two and a half years, and trial had commenced with 4 of 21 prosecution witnesses examined. Their earlier bail applications were rejected by the Special Judge (NDPS Cases) on 21.06.2025 and 09.04.2026; one applicant's bail was also rejected by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court on 08.08.2025. The co-accused Jagat Singh @ Jagatpal Singh was granted bail on 18.06.2026 on grounds of non-compliance with Section 52-A and Standing Order No.1/88. The applicants argued that similarly situated co-accused had been granted bail, that there was a 41-day delay in sending samples to FSL, violating Section 52-A and Standing Order No.1/88, and that prolonged custody and slow trial justified bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, citing the large commercial quantity attracting Section 37, the statutory presumptions under Sections 35 and 54, and that the co-accused's bail order was passed per incuriam and based on a repealed Standing Order, without considering the Supreme Court's judgment in Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh. The court analyzed the Supreme Court decisions in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif and Bharat Aambale, which held that Section 52-A is directory, and non-compliance or delayed compliance is a procedural irregularity that neither vitiates trial nor entitles accused to bail. The court reiterated that Section 37 is mandatory and that the accused must rebut statutory presumptions. The court also observed that the co-accused's bail order could not be treated as a binding precedent. The judgment text provided ends before the final operative order, but the court's reasoning strongly indicates that the bail applications would be rejected as the applicants failed to satisfy the twin conditions of Section 37 and the procedural lapses did not undermine the prosecution case.
Headnote
A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Bail - Section 37 - Court cannot grant bail unless it records reasonable grounds that accused is not guilty and will not commit offence; large quantity of poppy husk attracts mandatory twin conditions - Held that Section 37 is mandatory and applies to bail applications in NDPS cases (Paras 4, 6, 7) B) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Search and Seizure - Section 52-A - Provision is directory and non-compliance or delayed compliance does not vitiate trial or entitle accused to bail - Relying on Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif and Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, Held that mere procedural irregularity in sampling is not fatal unless discrepancies render prosecution case doubtful (Paras 6, 7) C) Evidence - Statutory Presumptions - Sections 35 and 54 NDPS Act - Presumptions of culpable mental state and possession operate against accused - Held that accused must rebut presumptions; prosecution can rely on other material to prove conscious possession even with procedural lapses (Paras 4, 6, 7) D) Precedent - Per Incuriam - Co-accused bail order passed relying on Standing Order No.1/88 (repealed in 2022) and without considering Bharat Aambale not binding - Held that such order cannot be treated as precedent (Paras 4.1, 7) E) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Delay in Trial - Long custody and slow trial not sufficient to override Section 37 when trial progressing - Held that 4 of 21 witnesses examined and trial pace adequate; delay alone does not satisfy twin conditions (Paras 3, 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether non-compliance with Section 52-A NDPS Act and delayed sample forwarding entitle accused to bail; whether Section 37 embargo applies and if accused have shown reasonable grounds; whether bail order of co-accused based on repealed Standing Order is binding precedent
Final Decision
Not mentioned; the provided judgment text ends before the final operative order, but the court's analysis indicates that the bail applications are likely to be rejected because Section 37 applies and non-compliance of Section 52-A is not fatal.
Law Points
- Section 37 NDPS Act imposes mandatory twin conditions for bail
- Section 52-A NDPS Act is directory and non-compliance does not vitiate trial
- delay in sampling is procedural irregularity
- statutory presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 NDPS Act operate against accused
- co-accused bail order passed per incuriam and based on repealed Standing Order is not binding
- burden lies on accused to show reasonable grounds for bail
