Judgment Intelligence
Bail GrantedNawal Kishor Kumawat v. Narcotics Control Bureau
2026:RJ-JP:41298
S.B. Criminal Misc. Third Bail Application No. 7154/2026
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 15 October 2026
- Bench
- Justice Anil Kumar Upman
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8, 22(c), 26, 37; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483; Constitution of India — Article 21
Final Outcome
Third bail application allowed: the petitioner to be released on a personal bond of Rs 5,00,000 with two sureties of Rs 2,50,000 each (one from a close family member) and to mark monthly attendance at the police station until the trial ends; any breach alone justifies cancellation (paras 11-14).
Source Rajasthan High Court, hcraj.nic.in — order pronounced 15.10.2026
Key holdings
- The satisfaction under Section 37 that the accused may not be guilty is only prima facie, on a broad reading of the material (para 8).
- More than twenty months in custody with no early end to the trial weighed decisively (paras 9-10).
- The Court did not decide the defence’s pleas on the merits, such as the claim that the case falls at most under Section 8/26 (paras 4, 10, 16).
- Conditions: a Rs 5 lakh personal bond, two sureties of Rs 2.5 lakh (one from a close family member) and monthly police-station attendance (paras 11-13).
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
The petitioner, owner of a licensed medical store, was arrested in an NCB, Jaipur case under Section 8/22(c) of the NDPS Act after tablets containing substances such as tramadol, alprazolam and clonazepam were allegedly recovered from his shop without proper bills or records (paras 1, 3-4). His first two bail applications were withdrawn, with liberty to renew after the result of investigation and then after the seizure officer's testimony; once the seizure officer was examined at trial, he filed this third application (para 2). He has been in custody since 21.01.2025 (para 5). The NCB said batch numbers did not match the bills, some bills were missing and his licence had been cancelled (para 6).
Court's Findings
The Court held that Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not create an absolute embargo on bail (para 8). A court need not record a positive finding that the accused is not guilty; it looks at the material broadly to see whether guilt may reasonably be proved, and the satisfaction that the accused may not be guilty is only prima facie, without a meticulous examination of the material (para 8). The petitioner had been in custody for more than twenty months, with no likelihood of an early conclusion of the trial (para 9). Noting that the Supreme Court has in numerous cases granted bail on account of prolonged incarceration, the Court held that continued custody without a timely trial violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21, and that conditional liberty must then override the statutory embargo under Section 37 (para 9). Considering the material on record, the seizure officer's statement, the likely length of the trial and the custody period, but without commenting on the merits, it allowed the third bail application (para 10).
Legal Principle
Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not an absolute bar to bail. Where an accused has spent a long period in custody and the trial is unlikely to end soon, continued incarceration violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, and conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo (paras 8-9).
