Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Ibraheem vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:30919]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14311/2025
CNR: RJHC011077442025
URN: CRLMB / 29809U / 2025
Ibraheem S/o Kameer Khan, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 10 Kld
Kundal P S Khajuwala District Bikaner Rajasthan.
(At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail Pratapgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RDSS Kharlia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Judgment
Reportable
1. Date of conclusion of arguments 10.07.2026
2. Date on which judgment was reserved 10.07.2026
3. Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is
pronounced: Full Judgment
4. Date of pronouncement 14.07.2026
1. The applicant has filed the present bail application under
Section 483 of BNSS being aggrieved against the order dated
03.04.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases,
District Pratapgarh, in Bail Application No.122/2025, whereby the
bail application filed by the accused-applicant under Section 483
of B.N.S.S. was rejected. The accused-applicant is behind the
bars, pursuant to the F.I.R. No.260/2024 registered at Police
Station Chotisadri, District Pratapgarh, for the offences punishable
under Sections 8/15, 18 & 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 05:32:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 07:48:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30919] (2 of 17) [CRLMB-14311/2025]
2. Brief facts of the case are that, during the course of routine
patrolling (and not on the basis of any prior information) on
29.09.2024, the police officials noticed a truck/trailer bearing
registration No. RJ-07-GE-9786 standing near a temple, and one
person was found standing near the axle and tyres of the vehicle.
On seeing the police officials, the said person attempted to
conceal himself, which created a suspicion in the minds of the
police officials. The police officials reached the spot and thereafter
asked the said person, i.e., the applicant, as to why he was
avoiding the police. However, no satisfactory explanation was
given by him. Thereafter, the trailer was searched, wherein
nothing objectionable was found. The said person disclosed his
name as Ibraheem and stated that he was a resident of 10 KLD,
Kundal, Police Station Khajuwala, District Bikaner. He further
informed the police that the trailer belonged to him. Upon
checking the tyres of the vehicle, it was found that three tyres had
been lifted through hydraulics and did not contain tubes. Upon
opening the said tyres, contraband was recovered from inside
them. A total quantity of 100.245 kg of poppy husk and 625
grams of opium was recovered. After completing the requisite
proceedings, the FIR was registered, and upon completion of
investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. The bail application of
the applicant was rejected by the learned Special Court vide order
dated 03.04.2025, while taking into consideration his criminal
antecedents, including his involvement in two other cases of
identical nature registered for offences under Sections 8/15 and
29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, as well as two other cases registered
under the IPC.
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 05:32:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 07:48:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30919] (3 of 17) [CRLMB-14311/2025]
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present
case is one of long incarceration, as the applicant has remained
behind bars for the last one year and nine months. He submitted
that there are a total of 12 witnesses to be examined on behalf of
the prosecution and as of now only five witnesses have been
examined.
4. He further submitted that the co-accused, Om Prakash S/o
Chandmal, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide
orders dated 28.07.2025 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous
Bail Application No. 6321/2025 (Om Prakash vs. State) as well as
another co-accused by same name i.e. Omprakash has also been
enlarged on bail by order dated 19.09.2025 passed in S.B.
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9665/2025 (Om
Prakash vs. State), respectively. He submitted that although the
said co-accused was implicated with the aid of Section 29 of the
NDPS Act, 1985, on the basis of the statement given by the
present applicant, considering the fact that they have already
been enlarged on bail, the applicant is also entitled to bail on the
ground of parity.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that no independent
witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove the
recovery and compliance with the mandatory provisions of the
NDPS Act, 1985, and this fact itself creates a doubt regarding the
recovery allegedly effected from the applicant. He further raised
the contention that the applicant had no conscious knowledge
regarding the presence of contraband in the vehicle.
6. He further submitted that there was a gross delay in
preparation of inventory and sending of the samples to FSL and
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 05:32:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 07:48:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30919] (4 of 17) [CRLMB-14311/2025]
therefore there is non-compliance of Section 52-A and the Rules of
2022 and on this ground alone, the applicant deserves to be
enlarged on bail. He further asserted that there is non-compliance
of Section 50 as no notice prior to search was given to the
applicant and further submitted that there is non-compliance of
Section 42(2) of the Act of 1985, inasmuch as no information with
regard to the search and seizure was forwarded to the senior
officer as mandated under Section 42(2). Counsel places reliance
upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of State of Rajasthan vs. Parmanand & Anr., (2014) 5 SCC
345. He therefore implores the Court to allow the bail application
of the applicant.
7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application and submitted that, so far as the ground of parity is
concerned, the recovery in the present case was effected from the
conscious possession of the applicant, whereas co-accused Om
Prakash was implicated only on the basis of the statement made
by the present applicant and no recovery was effected from him.
He submitted that the bail application of the said co-accused was
allowed on this very ground and, therefore, the applicant cannot
claim parity with co-accused Om Prakash.
8. He further submitted that, with regard to the alleged non-
compliance of Section 52-A and the delay in sending the samples
to the FSL, the Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly held that the said
provision is directory and not mandatory, and mere delay in
compliance would not vitiate the recovery or the trial. He further
submitted that, since the present case is one of chance recovery,
the provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985, are
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 05:32:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 07:48:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30919] (5 of 17) [CRLMB-14311/2025]
not applicable. He further asserted that merely because no
independent witness has been examined would not make any
difference, as the recovery has been duly proved. He further
submitted that the present case involves recovery of a huge
quantity of contraband, which is above the prescribed threshold
limit of commercial quantity, and therefore the embargo contained
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, would apply. Without
satisfaction of the twin conditions prescribed under Section 37, the
bail application filed by the applicant cannot be allowed. He further
asserted that the applicant has past criminal antecedents and,
therefore, in view of the second limb of Section 37 of the NDPS
Act, 1985, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Accordingly, he prayed for rejection of the bail application.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
10. With regard to the argument raised by learned counsel for
the applicant regarding non-compliance of Section 52-A of the
NDPS Act, 1985, and the delay in sending the samples to the FSL,
it would be relevant to observe that it is not the case of the
applicant that the samples were not intact, nor has any argument
been raised that the samples were tampered with. The contention
raised on behalf of the applicant is confined to the alleged delay in
compliance with the provisions of Section 52-A of the Act of 1985
and the Rules framed thereunder.
11. As regards the non-compliance of Section 52A and delay in
sending the samples for FSL, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 (8) SCC 452,
while dealing with all the judgments on the point in issue and even
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 05:32:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 07:48:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30919] (6 of 17) [CRLMB-14311/2025]
dealing with the reasons for introduction of Section 52-A in the
year 1989, by way of amendment Act, has held that non-
compliance of the same, as well as non-compliance of the
Standing Order or the rules, would not vitiate the trial. The
Hon’ble Apex Court, held as under:-
“56. We summarize our final conclusion as under:-
56.1. Although Section 52-A is primarily for the disposal and
destruction of seized contraband in a safe manner yet it
extends beyond the immediate context of drug disposal, as
it serves a broader purpose of also introducing procedural
safeguards in the treatment of narcotics substance after
seizure inasmuch as it provides for the preparation of
inventories, taking of photographs of the seized substances
and drawing samples therefrom in the presence and with the
certification of a magistrate. Mere drawing of samples in
presence of a gazetted officer would not constitute sufficient
compliance of the mandate under Section 52-A sub-section
(2) of the NDPS Act.
56.2. Although, there is no mandate that the drawing of
samples from the seized substance must take place at the
time of seizure as held in Mohanlal (supra), yet we are of
the opinion that the process of inventorying, photographing
and drawing samples of the seized substance shall as far as
possible, take place in the presence of the accused, though
the same may not be done at the very spot of seizure.
56.3. Any inventory, photographs or samples of seized
substance prepared in substantial compliance of the
procedure prescribed under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act
and the Rules / Standing Order(s) thereunder would have to
be mandatorily treated as primary evidence as per Section
52-A sub-section (4) of the NDPS Act, irrespective of
whether the substance in original is actually produced before
the court or not.
56.4. The procedure prescribed by the Standing Order(s) /
Rules in terms of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act is only
intended to guide the officers and to see that a fair
procedure is adopted by the officer in-charge of the
investigation, and as such what is required is substantial
compliance of the procedure laid therein.
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 05:32:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 07:48:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30919] (7 of 17) [CRLMB-14311/2025]
56.5. Mere non-compliance of the procedure under Section
52-A or the Standing Order(s) / Rules thereunder will not be
fatal to the trial unless there are discrepancies in the
physical evidence rendering the prosecution’s case doubtful,
which may not have been there had such compliance been
done. Courts should take a holistic and cumulative view of
the discrepancies that may exist in the evidence adduced by
the prosecution and appreciate the same more carefully
keeping in mind the procedural lapses.
56.6. If the other material on record adduced by the
prosecution, oral or documentary inspires confidence and
satisfies the court as regards the recovery as-well as
conscious possession of the contraband from the accused
persons, then even in such cases, the courts can without
hesitation proceed to hold the accused guilty
notwithstanding any procedural defect in terms of Section
52-A of the NDPS Act.
56.7. Non-compliance or delayed compliance of the said
provision or rules thereunder may lead the court to drawing
an adverse inference against the prosecution, however no
hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when such
inference may be drawn, and it would all depend on the
peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.
56.8. Where there has been lapse on the part of the police
in either following the procedure laid down in Section 52-A
of the NDPS Act or the prosecution in proving the same, it
will not be appropriate for the court to resort to the
statutory presumption of commission of an offence from the
possession of illicit material under Section 54 of the NDPS
Act, unless the court is otherwise satisfied as regards the
seizure or recovery of such material from the accused
persons from the other material on record.
56.9. The initial burden will lie on the accused to first lay
the foundational facts to show that there was non-
compliance of Section 52-A, either by leading evidence of its
own or by relying upon the evidence of the prosecution, and
the standard required would only be preponderance of
probabilities.
56.10. Once the foundational facts laid indicate non-
compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, the onus would
thereafter be on the prosecution to prove by cogent
evidence that either (i) there was substantial compliance
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 05:32:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 07:48:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30919] (8 of 17) [CRLMB-14311/2025]
with the mandate of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act OR (ii)
satisfy the court that such non-compliance does not affect
its case against the accused, and the standard of proof
required would be beyond a reasonable doubt.
57. The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.”
12. As far as the recovery or the sampling is concerned, the
same has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the
applicant, and the only argument tried to be raised is with
regard to non-compliance of Section 52-A of the Act of 1985. As
regards the non-compliance of Section 52-A is concerned, the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau v.
Kashif, 2024 (11) SCC 372, has held that the provision is
directory and not mandatory. It has further been held that
simple irregularity of delay in drawing the sample, or even in
case of non-compliance of Section 52-A, of the Act of 1985,
would not vitiate the trial. The Hon’ble Apex Court, has held as
under:-
“50. The upshot of the above discussion may be
summarized as under:-
50.1. The provisions of NDPS Act are required to be
interpreted keeping in mind the scheme, object and
purpose of the Act; as also the impact on the society as
a whole. It has to be interpreted literally and not
liberally, which may ultimately frustrate the object,
purpose and Preamble of the Act.
50.2. While considering the application for bail, the
Court must bear in mind the provisions of Section 37 of
the NDPS Act which are mandatory in nature. Recording
of findings as mandated in Section 37 is sine qua non is
known for granting bail to the accused involved in the
offences under the NDPS Act.
50.3. The purpose of insertion of Section 52-A laying
down the procedure for disposal of seized Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances, was to ensure the early
disposal of the seized contraband drugs and substances.
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 05:32:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 07:48:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30919] (9 of 17) [CRLMB-14311/2025]
It was inserted in 1989 as one of the measures to
implement and to give effect to the International
Conventions on the Narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances.
50.4. Sub-section (2) of Section 52-A lays down the
procedure as contemplated in sub-section (1) thereof,
and any lapse or delayed compliance thereof would be
merely a procedural irregularity which would neither
entitle the accused to be released on bail nor would
vitiate the trial on that ground alone.
50.5. Any procedural irregularity or illegality found to
have been committed in conducting the search and
seizure during the course of investigation or thereafter,
would by itself not make the entire evidence collected
during the course of investigation, inadmissible. The
Court would have to consider all the circumstances and
find out whether any serious prejudice has been caused
to the accused.
50.6. Any lapse or delay in compliance of Section 52-A
by itself would neither vitiate the trial nor would entitle
the accused to be released on bail. The Court will have to
consider other circumstances and the other primary
evidence collected during the course of investigation, as
also the statutory presumption permissible under Section
54 of the NDPS Act.”
13. The Hon’ble Apex Court has thus clarified that non-
compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, the Standing
Orders, and the Rules of 2022 would not vitiate the trial and
cannot be made a ground for acquittal. Therefore, the ground
sought to be raised by the applicant is devoid of merit, more
particularly when a perusal of the record reveals that the request
for preparation of inventory was immediately forwarded to the
concerned Magistrate. However, owing to the transfer of the
Magistrate, there was a delay in preparation of the inventory.
14. At page 118 of the paper-book, the inventory report
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 05:32:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 07:48:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30919] (10 of 17) [CRLMB-14311/2025]
prepared by the Magistrate under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act
is available on record, which itself establishes that the delay
occurred due to the transfer of the concerned Magistrate. Not
only this, at page 71 of the paper-book, the memo regarding
sending information for preparation of inventory to the
Magistrate is available, which reveals that the incident occurred
on 29.09.2024 and on 30.09.2024 itself, a request for
preparation of inventory and certification thereof under Section
52-A was made by the concerned officer to the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, District Pratapgarh.
15. Further, page 89 of the paper-book reveals that information
was sent to the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Pratapgarh,
on 30.09.2024, informing that videography and photographs of
the entire recovery proceedings had been undertaken and the
same had been uploaded on the Government portal. However,
after uploading, the same could not be downloaded due to
certain technical glitches. Thus, the ground sought to be raised
by the applicant regarding non-compliance of Section 52-A of the
NDPS Act and delay in sending the samples to the FSL cannot
constitute a valid ground for grant of bail. Even otherwise, the
said ground is not borne out from the material available on
record.
16. As regards the objection pertaining to the absence of any
independent witness, the same also deserves to be rejected, as
non-examination of an independent witness, by itself, cannot be
a ground to disbelieve the recovery, particularly when the
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 05:32:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 07:48:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30919] (11 of 17) [CRLMB-14311/2025]
present case is one of chance recovery.
17. The same conclusion follows in respect of the contention
regarding non-compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS
Act, 1985. It is pertinent to note that the present case is not one
of recovery effected pursuant to prior information but is a case
of chance recovery. During routine patrolling, the vehicle in
question was searched and the contraband was recovered.
Consequently, the present case falls within the ambit of Section
43 of the NDPS Act, 1985, and, therefore, the requirement of
recording and forwarding prior information or obtaining a search
warrant, as contemplated under Sections 41 and 42 of the Act,
would not arise. This Court recently has dealt with an identical
issue in the case of “Purshottam Das & Anr. vs. State of
Rajasthan” in the judgment dated 14.07.2026 passed in S.B.
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application Nos. 8517/2025 &
1454/2026. There being no prior information and the search
being conducted in a public place, the provisions of Section 43 of
the Act of 1985 would apply and Sections 41 & 42 of the NDPS
Act, 1985 cannot be said to be applicable to the case in hand.
18. Further, at the time of the search, the police officials had
no prior knowledge that any contraband was being transported
or concealed in the vehicle. Therefore, the provisions of the Code
of Criminal Procedure would govern the search, and there was
no requirement to serve a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS
Act, 1985. Even otherwise, the recovery was not effected from
the person of the applicant but from the truck/trailer being
driven by him. Consequently, the provisions of Section 50 of the
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 05:32:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 07:48:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30919] (12 of 17) [CRLMB-14311/2025]
NDPS Act, 1985, are not attracted.
19. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Kallu Khan vs. State of
Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 197, has considered all the
aforesaid issues and held as under:-
“12. After hearing and on perusal of the record and the
evidence brought, it is apparent that on apprehending the
accused, while making search of the motorcycle, 900 gm of
smack was seized to which seizure and sample memos were
prepared, as proved by the departmental witnesses. In the
facts of the case at hand, where the search and seizure was
made from the vehicle used, by way of chance recovery from
public road, the provisions of Section 43 of the NDPS Act would
apply. In this regard, the guidance may be taken from the
judgments of this Court in Raju and Sk. Sakkar. However, the
recovery made by Pranveer Singh (PW 6) cannot be doubted in
the facts of this case.
16. Simultaneously, the arguments advanced by the appellant
regarding non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is
bereft of any merit because no recovery of contraband from the
person of the accused has been made to which compliance of
the provision of Section 50 the NDPS Act has to follow
mandatorily. In the present case, in the search of motorcycle at
public place, the seizure of contraband was made, as revealed.
Therefore, compliance of Section 50 does not attract in the
present case. It is settled in Vijaysinh that in the case of
personal search only, the provisions of Section 50 of the Act is
required to be complied with but not in the case of vehicle as in
the present case, following the judgments of Surinder Kumar.
Considering the facts of this Court, the argument of non-
compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act advanced by the
counsel is hereby repelled.
17. The issue raised regarding conviction solely relying upon
the testimony of police witnesses, without procuring any
independent witness, recorded by the two courts, has also been
dealt with by this Court in Surinder Kumar holding that merely
because independent witnesses were not examined, the
conclusion could not be drawn that the accused was falsely
implicated. Therefore, the said issue is also well settled and in
particular, looking to the facts of the present case, when the
conduct of the accused was found suspicious and a chance(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 05:32:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 07:48:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30919] (13 of 17) [CRLMB-14311/2025]recovery from the vehicle used by him is made from public
place and proved beyond reasonable doubt, the appellant
cannot avail any benefit on this issue. In our view, the
concurrent findings of the courts does not call for interference.”
20. The Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that, in the
case of search of a vehicle, the provisions of Section 50 of the
NDPS Act, 1985, are not attracted. The contention regarding
non-examination of any independent witness has also been
repelled by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It has further been held that
where the recovery is a chance recovery effected from a vehicle
on a public road during inspection, the provisions of Section 43
of the NDPS Act, 1985, would apply and not those of Section 42.
21. As regards the reliance placed by learned counsel for the
applicant on the judgment in State of Rajasthan vs. Parmanand
(supra), the same is clearly distinguishable on facts. The said
case did not pertain to a chance recovery but involved a
recovery effected pursuant to prior secret information.
Therefore, the observations made therein regarding the
mandatory compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985,
have no application to the facts of the present case.
22. The contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant
seeking bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Om Prakash
also deserves to be rejected. Admittedly, no recovery was
effected from the conscious possession of the said co-accused,
and they were implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure
statement made by the present applicant. In contrast, in the
present case, a commercial quantity of contraband has been
recovered from the conscious possession of the applicant from
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 05:32:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 07:48:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30919] (14 of 17) [CRLMB-14311/2025]
the truck/trailer being driven by him. Therefore, neither the
ground of parity nor the plea of absence of conscious possession
is available to the applicant, particularly in view of the statutory
presumptions contained under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS
Act, 1985.
23. So far as the plea of long incarceration is concerned, the
same is also not made out. Learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that, as on date, five out of the total ten prosecution
witnesses have been examined thus it can be safely said that
trial is going on at good pace. Even otherwise, the applicant has
remained in custody for the last one year and nine months only.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, such period
of custody, by itself, cannot be regarded as constituting long
incarceration so as to warrant grant of bail, more particularly,
the minimum sentence of 10 years and maximum sentence of 20
years prescribed for commission of offence alleged against the
applicant.
24. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Union of India vs.
Vigin K. Varghese, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2440, while dealing
with an identical issue of prolonged incarceration, has held as
under:-
17. The High Court then, on the strength of those premises,
recorded a finding that there exist reasonable grounds to
believe that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence,
treating prolonged incarceration and likely delay as the
justification for bail. Such a finding is not a casual observation.
It is the statutory threshold under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) which
would disentitle the discretionary relief and grant of bail must
necessarily rest on careful appraisal of the material available. A
conclusion of this nature, if returned without addressing the
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 05:32:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 07:48:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30919] (15 of 17) [CRLMB-14311/2025]
prosecution’s assertions of operative control and antecedent
involvement, risks trenching upon appreciation of evidence
which would be in the domain of trial court at first instance.
25. In Union of India vs. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade, 2025
SCC OnLine SC 3049, while dealing with the issue of long
incarceration, Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:-
“11. In the present case, this Court finds that though the
Respondent-accused was in custody for one year four months
and charges have not been framed, yet the allegations are
serious inasmuch as not only is the recovery much in excess of
the commercial quantity but the Respondent-accused allegedly
got the cavities ingeniously fabricated below the trailor to
conceal the contraband.”
26. Very recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of State
of Punjab vs. Balraj Singh @ Billa, 2026 SCC OnLine SC
1058, has held that while dealing with bail applications involving
commercial quantities of narcotic drugs, the embargo under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, has to be considered, and
satisfaction regarding the conditions laid down therein has to be
recorded. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while considering the period
of incarceration of 1 year and 7 months, has held as under:-
“18. Upon consideration of the case of the respondent against
the twin conditions laid down in Section 37, we are of the view
that no case for bail is made out. There are antecedents
involving commission of offences of the very same nature under
the NDPS Act, therefore it cannot be said that he is not likely to
commit such an offence while on bail.
19. Moreover, the respondent has only undergone 1 year 7
months, and if found guilty a maximum sentence of twenty
years may be imposed upon him. Therefore, it cannot be said
that he has suffered incarceration for a long period, warranting
interference in view of Article 21 of the Constitution.
20. While this Court has recognized on several occasions that
prolonged incarceration warrants the grant of bail in view of
Article 21 of the Constitution, we have noticed that the
application thereof is not uniform. Moreover, there is no doubt(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 05:32:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 07:48:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30919] (16 of 17) [CRLMB-14311/2025]that what constitutes “prolonged incarceration” for the purposes
of bail, has not been expounded by this Court or the law of the
land.”
27. Again, in the case of State of Punjab vs. Sukhwinder
Singh @ Gora, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 671, an identical issue
came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in
which it has been held as under:-
“10. The impugned order, on its own showing, does not record
the satisfaction mandated under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the
NDPS Act. Far from recording such satisfaction, the High Court
has gone on to observe that ‘the rigours of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in mind the right to a speedy
trial.’ Such an approach is plainly contrary to the settled law
laid down by this Court and deserves to be set aside on this
ground alone. The right to speedy trial, rooted in Article 21 of
the Constitution, is undoubtedly a precious Constitutional right.
That said, in matters governed by a special enactment such as
the NDPS Act, particularly where the recovery is of commercial
quantity, the said right under Article 21 must be exercised
within the framework of Section 37 and cannot be pressed into
service solely on the ground of delay to override it. The
constitutional right under Article 21 and the special provision of
law under Section 37, NDPS Act are to be read harmoniously
and not placed in opposition to each other. The High Court, by
failing to record its satisfaction on the twin conditions under
Section 37, has in this Court’s view, committed an error.”
28. Thus, considering the same, bail applications cannot be
decided merely on the basis of prolonged incarceration, and the
twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, also
have to be considered.
29. Thus, the present ground is also not sustainable. More
particularly, in the present case, the applicant is having criminal
antecedents inasmuch as not only there are prior cases for
offences under IPC but there are two cases pending against the
applicant for offences punishable under the Act of 1985 itself.
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 05:32:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 07:48:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30919] (17 of 17) [CRLMB-14311/2025]
Thus the second prong as provided under Section 37 of the
NDPS Act, 1985, i.e. “that the applicant is not likely to commit
any offence while on bail” would come into play and looking to
the previous criminal antecedents, that satisfaction cannot be
recorded by this Court.
30. As an upshot of above, the bail application filed by the
applicant is bereft of merit and the same is dismissed
accordingly. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to
expedite the trial proceedings.
31. It is further, made clear that the findings
recorded/observations made hereinabove are for limited
purposes of adjudication of bail application and the same shall
not prejudice the trial of the case in any manner.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J
143/Love/680
(Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 05:32:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/07/2026 at 07:48:47 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
