Allowed¶27

Raghuveer Sansi S/O Kanhaiyalal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Apr 2026CRLMB/2586/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan High Court Jaipur; CRLMB 2586/2026; bail under Section 483 BNSS 2023; NDPS Act Sections 8, 21, 8/21, 8/29; smack recovery 9 grams; less than commercial quantity; Section 37 NDPS Act restriction not applicable; Puranmal Jat v. State of Rajasthan relied upon; custody since 29.01.2026; personal bond Rs.1,00,000/-; two sureties Rs.50,000/- each; condition for cancellation of bail on future similar involvement; Justice Ganesh Ram Meena; order dated 06/04/2026.

What did the court decide?

Accused-petitioner to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- together with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, with stipulation to appear before that Court or any Court to which the matter is transferred on all subsequent dates of hearing. ¶27

Raghuveer Sansi S/O Kanhaiyalal Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused-petitioner, facing allegations under Sections 8 and 21 of the NDPS Act with an alleged recovery of 9 gram smack (stipulated to be less than commercial quantity), should be enlarged on bail, the Section 37 NDPS Act restriction being inapplicable.

¶19

Court's answer

Since the alleged recovery from the petitioner is 9 gram smack, which is stipulated to be less than commercial quantity, the restriction for grant of bail under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act does not apply in the present case.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

This Court placed reliance on the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in Puranmal Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan, where the accused was enlarged on bail because the recovered contraband was below the stipulated commercial quantity and the Section 37 restriction did not apply.

¶20

Key takeaways

Without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, the Court deemed it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.ratio¶26
Bail is subject to the condition that if the accused-petitioner is found involved in any other criminal case of similar nature in future, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of this bail order.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

NDPS bail (S. 483 BNSS, 2023) — FIR No. 0036/2026, P.S. Karnivihar, Jaipur (West), offences under Sections 8/21, 8/29 NDPS Act — alleged recovery of 9 gram smack, less than commercial quantity — restriction on bail under Section 37 NDPS Act held inapplicable — reliance on Apex Court decision in Puranmal Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No.3394/2023 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10670/2023, decided 02.11.2023) — accused in custody since 29.01.2026, trial likely to take time — bail granted on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each — prosecution at liberty to seek cancellation if accused involved in any similar case in future.

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:14097]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2586/2026

¶4

Raghuveer Sansi S/o Kanhaiyalal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Plot No. 28, Narayan Vihar, Rampura Road, Sanganer, Police Station Muhana, District Jaipur. (Presently Petitioner Confined In Central Jail At Jaipur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girraj Prasad Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Aarti Sharma, P.P.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order

¶11

06/04/2026

¶12

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner in connection with FIR No. 0036/2026 registered at Police Station Karnivihar, District Jaipur (West) for offence under Sections 8 and 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act 1985 and against the order dated 04.02.2026 whereby learned Trial Court dismissed the bail application filed by the accused-petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21, 8/29 of N.D.P.S. Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel further submits that as per the F.I.R., the allegation levelled against the present accused-petitioner is that 9 gram smack has been recovered from his possession, which is less than commercial quantity. He further submits that the accused-

[2026:RJ-JP:14097]

[CRLMB-2586/2026]

(2 of 3)

petitioner is in custody since 29.01.2026 and trial of the case is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, the accused-petitioner may be released on bail.

¶17

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that there is a recovery of 9 gram smack from the possession of the accused-petitioner, therefore, he does not deserve indulgence of bail by this Court.

¶18

Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material made available on record.

¶19

The allegation against the petitioner relates to commission of offence under the provisions of Sections 8, 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the alleged recovery from him is of 9 gram smack, which is stipulated to be less than commercial quantity. The restriction for grant of bail under the provisions of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act does not apply in the present case.

¶20

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Puranmal Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal No.3394/2023 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10670/2023 decided on 02.11.2023 has enlarged the accused therein on bail and observed as under:-

¶21

“The allegations against the appellant relate to commission of offence under the provisions of Sections 8 and 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called “the Act”). Alleged recovery from him is about 35 kgs. and 150 grams Doda Posh (Poppy straw). The commercial quantity for poppy straw is 50 kgs. The appellant is

(3 of 3)

[2026:RJ-JP:14097]

[CRLMB-2586/2026]

in custody for over seven months. Charge-sheet has been submitted in the case. The recovered contraband item having weight less than the stipulated commercial quantity, the restriction on grant of bail under Section 37 of the Act does not apply in his case. We do not think his continued detention pending trial is necessary in the given circumstances.”

¶26

Having regard to the submissions made above, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accusedpetitioner on bail.

¶27

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed and it is directed that the accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided that he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lax Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court or any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶28

However, it is made clear that in case the accusedpetitioner is found to be involved in any other criminal case of similar nature in future, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of this bail order.

¶29

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶30

SHRUTI SHARMA /31

Raghuveer Sansi S/O Kanhaiyalal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghuveer Sansi S/O Kanhaiyalal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radhey Shyam S/O Dayal Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamlesh @ Kamal S/O Radhey Shyam Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Hussain S/O Mohammad Ismail Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh S/O Heeralal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Vijay Singh S/O Laxman Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sameer Hussain S/O Rahees Mohammad Vs the State of Rajasthan