Judgment Intelligence
Bail Granted- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 4 November 2026
- Bench
- Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8, 15 and 37; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483
The bail application was allowed: the petitioner is to be released, if not wanted in any other case, on a personal bond of Rs 1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs 50,000 each to the trial court's satisfaction, and must appear on every date until the trial ends (pp. 4-5).
Source Rajasthan High Court, hcraj.nic.in — order dated 4 November 2026
Key holdings
- The Gram Panchayat letter and the Naksha Mauka placed the tin-shed room on Gochar land, built for cows and fodder (p. 3).
- Found sitting outside, with nothing on his personal search, the petitioner's ownership or possession of the room was prima facie doubtful (pp. 3-4).
- The Court held the Section 37 conditions satisfied only for the limited purpose of deciding the bail application (p. 4).
- The observations are confined to bail; the trial court must decide the case independently (p. 5).
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
NyayVidhan's view · Practice note
Why It Matters
At the bail stage the Court relied on the Gram Panchayat's letter and the Naksha Mauka to place the room on Gochar land, and on the prosecution's own case that the petitioner was found sitting outside it (p. 3). It held the Section 37 conditions met only for this application and kept the merits open for the trial court (pp. 4-5). The order does not state the quantity threshold or discuss the information that led the police to the spot. Compare State v. Hazari Lal, where the Jodhpur Bench required proof of the accused's ownership, occupation or control of the premises, and State of Punjab v. Balkar Singh on mere presence at the place of recovery.
Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.



