Allowed¶21

Tularam S/O Pappu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Dec 2025CRLMB/13081/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRLMB 13081/2025; Rajasthan High Court Jaipur; Justice Pramil Kumar Mathur; order dated 10/12/2025; FIR No.184/2025 Police Station Tatarpur District Khairthal-Tijara; Sections 8 and 20 NDPS Act; Section 37 NDPS Act commercial quantity conditions; Section 483 BNSS bail; 20.420 kg ganja versus 20 kg commercial quantity; contraband weighed with packaging material; accused Tularam s/o Pappu Ram and Sabid s/o Zaikam; custody since 19.09.2025; personal bond Rs.50,000/- with two sureties Rs.25,000/- each; bail allowed.

What did the court decide?

Release of both petitioners on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the learned trial court, with obligation to appear before that Court on all dates till conclusion of the trial. ¶21

Tularam S/O Pappu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, prosecuted under Sections 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act after recovery of 20.420 kg of ganja marginally exceeding the 20 kg commercial quantity, are entitled to bail under Section 483 BNSS. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

The bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed; petitioners Tularam S/o Pappu Ram and Sabid S/o Zaikam shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the learned trial court, and must appear before that Court on all dates till conclusion of the trial.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

On consideration of the rival submissions and material on record, particularly the fact that the contraband appears to have been weighed along with the packaging material, its impact being only marginally higher than the commercial quantity, the Court held that the conditions enumerated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are duly satisfied in the present case.

¶20

Key takeaways

Bail has been granted without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case.obiter¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

NDPS bail - Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), Justice Pramil Kumar Mathur, order dated 10/12/2025: bail granted under Section 483 BNSS to Tularam s/o Pappu Ram and Sabid s/o Zaikam, accused under Sections 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act in FIR No.184/2025, PS Tatarpur, District Khairthal-Tijara. Recovery of 20.420 kg of ganja exceeded the 20 kg commercial quantity by only 420 grams; the Court noted the contraband appeared to have been weighed along with the packaging material and held the Section 37 NDPS Act conditions duly satisfied. In custody since 19.09.2025. Released on a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each; the Court expressly reserved opinion on the merits.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:50144]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13081/2025

¶4

Tularam S/o Pappu Ram, R/o Kanjipura Tehsil Bansur District Kotputali Behror, Rajasthan. (Accused In Sub Jail Kishangarhbas)

¶5

Sabid S/o Zaikam, R/o Utwal Tan Alwar District Alwar, Rajasthan. (Accused In Sub Jail Kishangarhbas).

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Jai RajTantia
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari,PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order

¶12

10/12/2025

¶13

The petitioners have preferred this bail application under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.184/2025 registered at Police Station Tatarpur, District-Khairthal-Tijara for offences under Sections 8 and 20 of NDPS Act.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. As per the prosecution story, a total of 20.420 kg of ganja was recovered from the accused-petitioners. It is submitted that the commercial quantity of ganja is 20 kg and the recovered contraband exceeds the commercial quantity by 420 grams only. It is further submitted that the weight of the contraband was measured along with the packaging material; therefore, the actual recovered

[2025:RJ-JP:50144]

[CRLMB-13081/2025]

(2 of 2)

contraband is below the commercial quantity. Petitioners are behind the bars since 19.09.2025. The trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners in further custody, hence, the bail application of the petitioners may be allowed.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶20

On consideration of the rival submission and material available on record and deliberating all the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the contraband appears to have been weighed along with the packaging material, having impact of marginally higher than commercial quantity, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the conditions enumerated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are duly satisfied in the present case.

¶21

Thus, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, I am inclined to grant benefit of bail to the petitioners. 7. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioners- Tularam S/o Pappu Ram and Sabid S/o Zaikam shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court for their appearance before that Court on all the dates till conclusion of the trial.

¶22

(PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR ),J

¶23

Arun/54

Tularam S/O Pappu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tularam S/O Pappu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aas Mohammad S/O Malkhan Vs State of Rajasthan

Gabbar S/O Sh. Hansraj Vs State of Rajasthan

Parmanand Meena S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad Meena Vs Prakash Saini S/O Bahnwar Lal Saini

Hassan Abbas S/O Shri Piru Ali Vs State of Rajasthan

Juvenile a S/O Bharatlal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Kishan @ Charbaal Aala @ Futya @ Ramkishan @ Krishan Vs State of Rajasthan