Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Dama Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:33757]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
1. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9802/2025
CNR: RJHC010726132025
URN: CRLMB / 20309U / 2025
Dama Ram S/o Shri Chuna Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Lakhvara Chohtan, Police Station Chohtan, District Barmer,
Rajasthan. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
Connected With
2. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4668/2026
CNR: RJHC010362082026
URN: CRLMB / 10563U / 2026
Kishanaram S/o Shri Padmaram, Aged About 44 Years, Resident
Of Kharda, Police Station Gira, District Barmer Raj. (Lodged In
Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. L.K. Ramdhari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
22/07/2026
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
9802/2025:
1. Mr. L.K. Ramdhari, learned counsel for the applicant- Dama
Ram submits that he does not wish to press the present criminal
miscellaneous bail application, at this stage.
(Uploaded on 23/07/2026 at 05:19:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 07:50:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:33757] (2 of 7) [CRLMB-9802/2025]
2. In view of the submission made, the criminal miscellaneous
bail application is dismissed as not pressed.
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
4668/2026:
1. The matter pertains to the year 2026 and, except for
seeking adjournment, learned counsel for the applicant has not
made any endeavour to argue the matter. Today, when the matter
was called in the first round, a request was made on behalf of the
learned arguing counsel for the applicant to pass over the matter,
hence, the matter was ordered to be taken up in the second
round. However, in the second round, nobody appeared on behalf
of the applicant. It appears that the learned counsel for the
applicant is not interested in pursuing the present bail application.
2. The applicant has filed the present bail application under
Section 483 of BNSS being aggrieved against the order dated
20.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases,
No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application
No.09/2026, whereby the bail application filed by the accused-
applicant under Section 483 B.N.S.S. was rejected. The accused-
applicant is behind the bars, pursuant to the F.I.R. No.96/2023
registered at Police Station Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, District Jodhpur
City (West) against the accused-applicant for the offence
punishable under Sections 8 & 15 of the NDPS Act.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, acting upon the
information received, nakabandi was arranged on 25.04.2023. The
police officials, upon noticing a truck bearing Registration No. RJ-
04-GB-1075, directed the driver of the truck to stop. Upon being
asked, the driver disclosed his name as Kishna Ram, whereas the
(Uploaded on 23/07/2026 at 05:19:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 07:50:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:33757] (3 of 7) [CRLMB-9802/2025]
co-occupant disclosed his name as Dama Ram. On conducting a
search of the truck, 201 sacks containing 2260.500 kilograms of
poppy husk, were recovered. Based upon the said recovery, the
FIR was lodged, the investigation was completed, and after
framing of charges, the trial is pending consideration.
4. As per the documents filed along with the bail application, up
to 27.05.2024, two witnesses, including the Investigating Officer,
had already been examined. The counsel for the applicant is not
present to apprise the Court regarding the present status of the
trial.
5. As per the pleadings of the application, the applicant has
taken only two grounds, namely, long incarceration and that there
are no independent witnesses to corroborate the recovery effected
from the applicant.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the case at hand is a
case, wherein the huge quantity of contraband was recovered
from the conscious possession of the applicant and that there is
cogent evidence available on record against the applicant in this
regard. Therefore, the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act
would apply with full vigour to the case in hand. He, therefore,
prays for rejection of the bail application.
7. Heard learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material
available on record. A huge quantity of contraband has been
recovered from the Truck in question, which was being driven by
the applicant. Therefore, the embargo under Section 37 of the
NDPS Act would apply to the case at hand.
8. As far as the ground of prolonged incarceration is concerned,
the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain
(Uploaded on 23/07/2026 at 05:19:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 07:50:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:33757] (4 of 7) [CRLMB-9802/2025]
v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 18 SCC 166, has categorically
held that the embargo under Section 37 of the Act of 1985 has to
be read along with the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution
of India, wherein the accused-applicant is having the ‘right to a
speedy trial’. However, the embargo under Section 37 of the Act of
1985 would have to give way to Article 21 of the Constitution of
India in case the accused-applicant has undergone half of the
minimum sentence prescribed for the offence in question. In the
present case, the minimum sentence prescribed is 10 years and
the maximum sentence prescribed is 20 years. The accused-
applicant has remained behind bars for only three years and four
months which is not even half of the minimum sentence
prescribed for offence in question, and thus, the same cannot be
said to be a case of prolonged incarceration.
9. 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 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.”
(Uploaded on 23/07/2026 at 05:19:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 07:50:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:33757] (5 of 7) [CRLMB-9802/2025]
10. In Union of India vs. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade, 2025
SCC OnLine SC 3049, while dealing with the issue of long
incarceration, the Hon’ble Apex Court, 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.”
11. 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 twin 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
that what constitutes “prolonged incarceration” for the purposes
of bail, has not been expounded by this Court or the law of the
land.”
(Uploaded on 23/07/2026 at 05:19:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 07:50:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:33757] (6 of 7) [CRLMB-9802/2025]
12. 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, wherein
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.”
13. Thus, the law is no longer res integra that even in cases of
prolonged incarceration (except for the period as specified in
Mohd. Muslim’s case), the twin prongs of Section 37 of the Act of
1985 have to be considered and satisfaction has to be recorded
and simply on the ground of long incarceration, bail cannot be
granted.
14. As far as the ground of there being no independent
witnesses is concerned, the same, by itself, cannot be a ground
for consideration at this stage. Even otherwise, the Hon’ble Apex
(Uploaded on 23/07/2026 at 05:19:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 07:50:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:33757] (7 of 7) [CRLMB-9802/2025]
Court, in the case of Kallu Khan vs. State of Rajasthan,
(2021) 19 SCC 197, has held that simply because there are no
independent witnesses, would not make any difference
whatsoever. The Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:
“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 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.”
15. In the present case, the recovery has been effected from the
conscious possession of the accused-applicant, and it is not even
the case of the accused-applicant that there has been non-
compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act of 1985. Even
otherwise, the presumption under Section 35 of the Act of 1985
would come into force in the case in hand, and the accused-
applicant has not been able to satisfy the twin conditions provided
under Section 37 of the Act of 1985 for grant of bail.
16. Thus, no case for grant of bail is made out. Accordingly, the
present bail application is dismissed.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J
4-5/Mohit Kumar/626
(Uploaded on 23/07/2026 at 05:19:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/07/2026 at 07:50:55 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
