Bhagirath Ram S/O Shri Narayan Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

[2025:RJ-JP:45350]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2842/2025

Bhagirath Ram S/o Shri Narayan Ram, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Kharda Mewasa, Khudiyala Tivri, Tehsil Osiya, Police Station Kawrwad, District Jodhpur (Raj.) (At Present In Central Jail, Ajmer)

¶5

----Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Ms. Meenakshi Pareek with Mr. Harish Kumar Tripathi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Rhishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP
	Ms. Arti Sharma,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶11

Order

¶12

12/11/2025

¶13

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-applicant. The accused-applicant was arrested in connection with FIR No. 057/2024 registered at Police Station Saket Nagar District Beawar for the offence(s) under Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act.

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant has submitted that the applicant is a young person, aged about 23 years, belonging to agricultural background. It is submitted that the applicant is in custody ever since 28.01.2024. It is further submitted that case has been registered under Section 8 and Section 15 of the NDPS Act, 1985 against the applicant. It has been undertaken by learned counsel of the applicant that there exists no criminal antecedents against the applicant.

[2025:RJ-JP:45350]

[CRLMB-2842/2025]

(2 of 6)

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued the matter at length and has placed his reliance on the following:

¶19

(i) Rabi Prakash Vs. The State of Odisha reported in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4169/2023 ,

¶20

(ii) Sitaram @ Moolchand Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in SLP (Crl.) No(s). 7514/2024 ,

¶21

(iii) Domar @ Pintu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in SLP (Crl.) no.10287/2025 ,

¶22

(iv) Amit @ Chintu Patel Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 11224/2024 ,

¶23

(v) Jaswinder Singh @ Kala Vs. The State of Punjab reported in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3502/2025,

¶24

(vi) Mohammad Parvezmiya Ismailmiya Shekh Vs. State of Gujarat reported in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 10173/2024 ,

¶25

(vii) Raju Miah Vs. The State of West Bengal reported in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5870/2025,

¶26

(vii) MD Kolimuddin SK @ Rinku Vs The State of West Bengal reported in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 15373/2023 ,

¶27

(viii) Siyaram Gurjar @ Gurja Vs. State of West Bengal reported in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3401/2025.

¶28

Further, reliance has also been placed upon an order dated 02.11.2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the

[2025:RJ-JP:45350]

[CRLMB-2842/2025]

(3 of 6)

case of Ladhu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in S.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd Bail Application No.8738/2023 .

¶33

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that all the aforesaid judgments are pari-materia and the matter at hand is on equal footing. It is further submitted the applicant is in custody from a period of about one and a half years and the bail has been granted by the Apex Court under similar circumstances in a plethora of judgments, as also referred above. It is further submitted that there was a procedural lapse in the instant matter as the relevant FSL report was not sent by the concerned investigating agency within the stipulated time.

¶34

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the instant bail application and has submitted that narcotic substance of approximately 832 kilograms has been recovered from the applicant, whereas, as per the Schedule to the Act, the commercial quantity prescribed is 50 kilograms. It is submitted that the recovered quantity is approximately sixteen times more than the commercial quantity. It is further submitted that the applicant was driving the vehicle, and the aforesaid quantity was recovered from the tank of the same vehicle, which was purportedly be concealed by the applicant.

¶35

Further, it is submitted that all mandatory procedural requirements, as prescribed under the law, were duly complied by the investigating agency and no material irregularity or procedural lapse has been committed during the course of investigation. Nevertheless, the judgments on which the reliance has been placed by the learned counsel of the applicant are distinguishable from the instant matter and the provision as enshrined under

(4 of 6)

[2025:RJ-JP:45350]

[CRLMB-2842/2025]

Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 needs to be followed while granting

¶40

bail to the applicant. For the sake of handiness, the relevant provision from the NDPS Act is reproduced herein below:

¶41

" 37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable .—

¶42

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),-

¶43

(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;

¶44

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his

¶45

own bond unless-

¶46

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and

¶47

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail."

¶48

Learned Public Prosecutor has further submitted that in the matter cases under the NDPS Act involving recovery of commercial quantity, mere reference to the high quantity of contraband is not sufficient; the Court must record a finding on a prima facie basis, which is missing in the present case. It is further submitted that, although the maximum sentence prescribed upon conviction extends to 20 years, the applicant has undergone a custody period of about one and a half years, and therefore, the Court is required to examine the merits of the case while considering the bail plea.

¶49

In support of the contentions made insofar, reliance is placed upon the ratio encapsulated in Sukhdev Singh vs. State of

[2025:RJ-JP:45350]

[CRLMB-2842/2025]

(5 of 6)

Haryana: Criminal Appeal No. 2118 of 2008, wherein it has been held that prolonged incarceration before conclusion of trial can be a relevant consideration for grant of bail. It is, however, submitted that in cases involving commercial quantity, the Court ought to take a stringent view in light of Section 37 of the NDPS Act; however, in certain exceptional cases, a liberal prima facie assessment may be made depending upon the facts and circumstances. In the present case, however, no such exceptional circumstances exist so as to justify deviation from the statutory mandate.

¶54

Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, upon a perusal of the material available on record and taking note of the fact that narcotic substance of approximately 832 kilograms has been recovered from the applicant, whereas, as per the Schedule to the Act, the commercial quantity prescribed is 50 kilograms; that the judgments on which the reliance has been placed by the learned counsel of the applicant are distinguishable from the instant matter; and the provision as enshrined under Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 needs to be followed while granting bail to the applicant; that the punishment as per the statute qua the offence at hand is imprisonment upto twenty years, and as on date approximately one and half years imprisonment is undertaken by the applicant, which is prima facie minuscule, specially when the matter is of NDPS Act; and on lines of the ratio encapsulated in Sukhdev Singh (supra), this Court is not inclined to allow the present application.

¶55

(6 of 6) [CRLMB-2842/2025]

¶56

[2025:RJ-JP:45350]

¶57

Accordingly, the instant bail application filed under Section

¶58

483 BNSS stand dismissed.

¶59

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶60

JKP/3

Bhagirath Ram S/O Shri Narayan Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagirath Ram S/O Shri Narayan Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghuvir Singh S/O Shri Dharmchand Vs State of Rajasthan

Shohel Khan @ Sohel Manjar S/O Nijamuddin Vs State of Rajasthan

Dholaram S/O Shri Pooran Vs State of Rajasthan

Lakkhiram S/O Shri Dhannaram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Nims University Rajasthan Jaipur Vs State of Rajasthan

Manjeet Singh S/O Dalip Singh Vs State of Rajasthan