Section 8

The Rajasthan High Court suspended the ten-year sentence of a Jaipur medical-store owner convicted under the NDPS Act, finding prima facie that the samples sent for testing were not drawn before a Magistrate under Section 52A (paras 9, 11-12). Because the same police constable was shown present at two searches during overlapping times, it asked the Director General of Police to inquire (paras 15, 17).

The J&K and Ladakh High Court at Srinagar refused bail to a man allegedly found with 602 g of charas, whose disclosure led police to two co-accused holding 498 g and 318 g (para 2). As the prosecution had invoked Section 29, the Court treated the 1.416 kg aggregate as prima facie commercial quantity, so Section 37 applied; the Barot principle against clubbing did not apply ipso facto, and the twin conditions were not met (paras 9, 12, 14-16).

The Rajasthan High Court refused the State's plea to cancel bail granted in 2022 to a former station house officer accused of letting poppy-straw carriers go for a bribe. Cancellation needs post-bail misconduct or supervening circumstances, not a complaint that the gravity of the offence was ignored, and one Bench cannot sit in appeal over a co-ordinate Bench's bail order (paras 9, 11-12, 15).

Dismissing a State appeal pending since 1997, the Rajasthan High Court upheld the acquittal of a man charged with possessing opium recovered from a room of a house while he stood outside. Possession under the NDPS Act must be conscious and exclusive, and the prosecution never proved that the room belonged to him or was under his control (paras 4-10, 12).

Dismissing a State appeal pending since 1996, the Rajasthan High Court upheld the acquittal of two men charged with possessing and supplying opium. The trial court's findings rested on material contradictions, procedural lapses and evidentiary deficiencies, and its view was plausible; given the stringent NDPS Act and its mandatory safeguards, the prosecution had not proved its case with the required certainty (paras 6-7).

The Supreme Court ordered the release on bail of two Amritsar doctors arrested by the NCB over 2000 Tramadol tablets. Their arrest memo, in a template format, recorded only that the grounds of arrest had been explained orally. Under Mihir Rajesh Shah, written grounds then had to be supplied two hours before production before the Magistrate, and that was not done (paras 20-22). Applying that ratio, the appellants were entitled to release (para 23).

The Rajasthan High Court refused regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS to a man accused of bringing 5.920 kg of hydroponic weed from Bangkok to Jaipur, although the quantity was below the 20 kg commercial quantity he relied on (paras 1-2, 5). Noting that a co-ordinate Bench had refused bail in such cases, it relied on the drug's potency, its value of about Rs 6 crore in the international market and his alleged link with a drug syndicate (para 5).

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur granted bail, on a second application, to a man accused of supplying opium in a CBN Pratapgarh case under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act; his counsel said nothing was recovered from him (paras 1, 3, 8). Following Akhlak @ Vilsan, the Court counted the opium found with riders of two motorcycles per accused, each below commercial quantity, and noted the possessors' bail and his custody of about a year (paras 6-7).

Granting bail to a woman held for over four years in an NDPS and Customs case involving more than a commercial quantity, the Supreme Court noted she had not cross-examined witnesses until she engaged her own counsel. It directed all trial courts to tell accused persons of their right to legal-aid counsel and to record the offer, the response and the action taken before witnesses are examined (paras 3-13).

The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to an accused in a 248 kg poppy husk case despite the Section 37 bar, finding prima facie non-compliance with the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022: the sample sent for chemical examination was drawn by the police at the spot, not in the presence of a Magistrate, and the bags were neither homogenised nor marked (paras 15-19, 24-28).

The Rajasthan High Court recalled a condition requiring an NDPS convict to deposit a Rs 1 lakh fine as part of the order suspending his sentence. Because of poverty he could not pay, and he stayed in jail despite the release order of 07.10.2025 (paras 9, 12, 15). Following CBI v. Ashok Sirpal, the Court held that a deposit condition the convict cannot comply with may defeat his right of appeal and violate Article 21 (paras 13-14).

The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a man accused of carrying 6.220 kg of hydroponic weed in a Customs Air Intelligence Unit case at Jaipur International Airport (paras 1, 6). As the recovery was below commercial quantity, the Court held that the Section 37 NDPS restriction on bail did not apply and, following the Supreme Court's order in Puranmal Jat, released him without commenting on the merits (paras 6-9).