[2026:RJ-JP:12316] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9757/2025 Ramlal S/o Heeralal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Mahua Kho, Police Station Aklera, District Jhalawar, Present Ramnagar Colony, Thana Aklera, District Jhalawar (Raj.) (Accused In Present Confined District Jail Jhalawar). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ali Mohammed Khan with Ms. Dhrusti Mishra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 24/03/2026 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS on behalf of the accused-applicant. The accused- applicant was arrested in connection with FIR No.12/2025 registered at Police Station Ranpur, District Kota City for the offence(s) under Sections 8/21 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the applicant is sole bread earner of the family, aged about 33 years. It is submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 10.01.2025 and that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the matter. It is further submitted that though there are criminal antecedents registered against the applicant but the same do not pertain to the NDPS Act. It is also submitted that the recovered quantity of the contraband i.e., smack is approximately 400 grams and the liability of the applicant is merely vicarious in nature. [2026:RJ-JP:12316] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-9757/2025] Learned counsel has submitted that there are procedural infractions vis-a-vis Section 52A of the NDPS Act, as the drawing of the inventory was delayed and carried out on 30.01.2025. It is also submitted that the recovered samples were not sent to the laboratory within the prescribed time. Learned counsel further submits that the conclusion of trial is likely to take a long time and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant behind bars till disposal of the case. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the instant bail application. It is submitted that the recovered quantity of contraband i.e. smack is 400 grams, which is higher than the prescribed commercial quantity, i.e., 250 grams. It is further submitted the applicant was specifically named by the co-accused Dharmendra, from whom the conscious physical recovery was taken place at the spot. It is next submitted that the alleged procedural infractions are a matter of trial and cannot be made a basis for granting bail at this nascent stage. It is lastly submitted that since commercial quantity of the contraband is involved, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted in the present matter. 4. Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that though there are criminal antecedents registered against the accused-applicant but the same are registered under the IPC; that the recovered contraband is higher than the prescribed commercial quantity, relying upon ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court enunciated in Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 346, wherein it has been held that even if the accused [2026:RJ-JP:12316] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-9757/2025] persons are not the main accused but vicarious agents of the kingpin/mastermind involved in drug trafficking, the statutory embargo enshrined under Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be strictly construed, and looking to the overall facts and circumstances and material on record but without commenting on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is not inclined to allow the bail application of the accused-applicant. 5. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS stands dismissed. (SAMEER JAIN),J Pooja/42