Photo: TrendSPLEND via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Judgment Intelligence
Bail GrantedPappulal v. State of Rajasthan
2026:RJ-JD:5293
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 8807/2025
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 29 January 2026
- Bench
- Justice Farjand Ali
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8, 15, 29, 37, 42, 52A; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 — Rules 3, 5, 8, 9, 13; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483; Constitution of India — Article 21
Final Outcome
Second bail application under Section 483 BNSS allowed; the petitioner was ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties of Rs 25,000 each (para 28).
Key holdings
- The 2022 Rules bind seizing and investigating officers from the date they came into force; deviations are not mere irregularities (para 10).
- A forensic report based on a sample not drawn before and certified by a Magistrate loses its evidentiary sanctity, prima facie (para 16).
- Section 37 of the NDPS Act requires a prima facie assessment and cannot be read to make bail impossible (paras 22-23).
- At the bail stage it is for the prosecution to justify continued detention, not for the accused to prove innocence (para 25).
Brief Facts
On 17.01.2023 police at Rashmi, Chittorgarh intercepted two vehicles whose occupants fled; 248 kg of poppy husk was allegedly recovered from a pickup, and an FIR was registered under Sections 8/15 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act (para 2). The petitioner was arrested; the Special Judge refused bail on 20.08.2024, and his first High Court application was withdrawn in May 2025 with liberty to renew it after two prosecution witnesses were examined (para 3). With their evidence recorded, he filed this second bail application (paras 3, 7).
Court's Findings
The trial was at an early stage and unlikely to end soon, so the Court re-examined bail on merits through the prism of Article 21, which requires scrupulous adherence to the procedure established by law (paras 7-8). The 2022 Rules were in force on the date of seizure and bound the officers; deviations are not mere irregularities (paras 9-10). Rules 3, 5, 8, 9 and 13 require classification and sealing before witnesses, deposit in a godown, an application to the Magistrate, sampling in his presence, and dispatch of those certified samples to the laboratory (paras 11-13). Here the sample tested was the one drawn by the police at the spot, the bags were not homogenised, the Section 42 information was not reduced to writing and there was no videography (paras 15-18). Following Mohd. Muslim, Section 37 calls for a prima facie view; where mandatory safeguards are not followed, continued detention loses constitutional legitimacy (paras 22-24).
Legal Principle
Under the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, samples must be drawn in the presence of a Magistrate and the certified samples sent for testing. Prima facie non-compliance with these mandatory safeguards can justify bail even in a commercial-quantity case, as Section 37 calls only for a prima facie assessment (paras 12-13, 19, 22-24).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023 (order dated 28.03.2023)
Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be read to exclude bail altogether; the court need only be reasonably satisfied, on a prima facie look at the material, that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to offend on bail.
