The Rajasthan High Court has denied bail to a truck driver held with 100 kg of poppy husk, citing his previous NDPS Act violations.
New Delhi, India Jul 14, 2026 ALN: Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a bail application filed by a truck driver accused of transporting 100.245 kg of poppy husk and 625 grams of opium hidden inside hydraulically-lifted tyres, holding that his prior involvement in two other NDPS Act cases foreclosed satisfaction of the mandatory twin conditions under Section 37 of the Act.
Justice Sandeep Shah held that in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics, procedural lapses such as delayed compliance with Section 52-A or the non-association of independent witnesses cannot by themselves entitle an accused to bail once the statutory embargo under Section 37 comes into play.
Citing the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 671, the Court quoted with approval:
“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 bail application was filed under Section 483 BNSS against an order dated Apr 3, 2025, by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Pratapgarh, rejecting the applicant’s plea for bail. Applicant Ibraheem was lodged in District Jail, Pratapgarh, pursuant to FIR No. 260/2024 registered at Police Station Chotisadri for offences under Sections 8/15, 18 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
According to the prosecution case, on Sep 29, 2024, police officials on routine patrolling — not acting on any prior information — noticed a truck and trailer standing near a temple, with a man later identified as Ibraheem near its axle and tyres attempting to conceal himself. On being questioned, he gave no satisfactory explanation. A search of the trailer revealed that three of its tyres had been lifted through hydraulics and did not contain tubes; on opening them, the police recovered 100.245 kg of poppy husk and 625 grams of opium. The Trial Court had rejected bail after taking into account the applicant’s antecedents, including two other pending NDPS Act cases and two cases under the IPC.
Counsel for the applicant, RDSS Kharlia, argued that the applicant had been in custody for one year and nine months with only five of the prosecution’s witnesses examined so far, and sought bail on the ground of long incarceration. He further contended that co-accused Om Prakash — implicated on the basis of the applicant’s own disclosure statement — had already been enlarged on bail in two separate applications, entitling the applicant to parity. He also argued that no independent witness had been examined to prove the recovery, that there was delay in preparing the inventory and sending samples to the FSL in violation of Section 52-A and the Rules of 2022, and that no notice under Section 50 or information to a senior officer under Section 42(2) had been furnished, relying on State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand & Anr., (2014) 5 SCC 345.
The Public Prosecutor, Surendra Bishnoi, opposed the application, submitting that the recovery in this case was from the applicant’s conscious possession, unlike the co-accused who was named only on the applicant’s statement, and that the quantity recovered was well above the commercial threshold, attracting the embargo under Section 37.
On the Section 52-A ground, the Court found from the record that a request for preparation of the inventory had been forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh, the very next day, and that the resulting delay was attributable to the transfer of the Magistrate concerned rather than any lapse by the investigating agency; videography of the recovery had also been uploaded to the government portal the same day but could not later be downloaded owing to a technical glitch. Relying on Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 (8) SCC 452, and Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, 2024 (11) SCC 372, the Court held that Section 52-A is directory and not mandatory, and that mere delay in compliance does not vitiate the trial or entitle an accused to bail.
On the absence of an independent witness and the alleged non-compliance of Sections 42 and 50, the Court held that since the recovery was a chance recovery under Section 43 of the NDPS Act — not one effected pursuant to prior information — Sections 41 and 42 had no application, and since the contraband was recovered from the trailer rather than the applicant’s person, Section 50 was equally inapplicable. The Court relied on its own recent decision in Purshottam Das & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, decided on Jul 14, 2026, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kallu Khan v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 197, which held that non-examination of an independent witness does not by itself discredit a chance recovery from a vehicle.
The plea of parity was also rejected, since co-accused Om Prakash had been implicated solely on the applicant’s disclosure statement with no independent recovery, whereas the applicant himself was found in conscious possession of a commercial quantity recovered from the vehicle he was driving, attracting the statutory presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act. On long incarceration, the Court held that a custody period of one year and nine months, against a prescribed sentence of up to twenty years, did not amount to prolonged incarceration warranting bail, particularly with the trial underway. The Court cited Union of India v. Vigin K. Varghese, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2440, Union of India v. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3049, and State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh @ Billa, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1058, to hold that the twin conditions under Section 37 must be satisfied regardless of the length of custody.
Finding that the applicant had two other pending cases under the NDPS Act besides two cases under the IPC, the Court held that the second limb of Section 37 — that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail — could not be satisfied, and dismissed the bail application, directing the Trial Court to expedite the trial proceedings. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the adjudication of the bail application and would not prejudice the trial in any manner.
Title: Ibraheem v. State of Rajasthan
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14311/2025
Citation: 2026:RJ-JP:30919
Counsel for petitioner: Mr. RDSS Kharlia
Counsel for respondent: Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP
To learn more about the latest developments in Crime & Law, stay updated with our exclusive reports and analyses on AiLensNews.
