Separate NDPS Recoveries, Second Bail: Rajasthan HC

Separate NDPS Recoveries and Commercial Quantity: Rajasthan High Court Grants Second Bail After Seizure Officer's Evidence

Published: 24 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court granted second bail to two accused in a ganja case under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act after the seizure officer had testified (paras 1-2, 7). The defence objected to clubbing separate recoveries into commercial quantity, and the State accepted that each individual quantity was below it (paras 3-4). The Court weighed the record, a co-ordinate Bench's observations in Akhlak @ Vilasan, the absence of similar antecedents and the custody period, without commenting on the merits (para 6).

Key holdings

Bail pleas withdrawn with liberty to renew after the seizure officer's testimony were renewed once he testified as PW-1 (para 2).

The State accepted that each accused carried a separate bag and that each individual quantity was below commercial quantity (para 4).

The Court's reasons: the charge-sheet with the seizure officer's testimony, Akhlak @ Vilasan's observations, no similar antecedents and custody (para 6).

Mallikarjun v. State of Karnataka was cited only in the petitioners' submissions, not in the Court's reasons (paras 3, 6).

Each petitioner must mark attendance at the police station in the first week of every month till the trial ends; the SHO reports defaults (paras 8-9).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitioners were arrested in a Police Station Clock Tower, Ajmer case under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act, later charge-sheeted (para 1). Their first bail pleas were withdrawn with liberty to renew after the Seizure Officer's testimony; he was examined as PW-1 (para 2). Counsel said 10 kg 350 g and 8 kg 250 g of ganja were recovered from them and 8.280, 8.250 and 10.392 kg from three others; that separate quantities could not be clubbed into commercial quantity (citing Akhlak @ Vilasan, Mallikarjun); and that they lacked similar antecedents and were in custody since 20.03.2024 (para 3). The Public Prosecutor accepted each individual quantity was below commercial quantity but said the clubbed total would be commercial (para 4).

Court's Findings

The Court recorded that it had considered the contentions (para 5). Its reasons are in one paragraph: the totality of the facts and circumstances; the arguments for the petitioners; the material on record, namely the charge-sheet including the Seizure Officer's testimony; the observations of a co-ordinate Bench in Akhlak @ Vilasan & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 2010(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1542; the absence of criminal antecedents of a similar nature; and the custody period (para 6). On that basis it allowed both second bail applications, expressly without commenting on the merits or demerits of the case (para 6). The order does not itself decide whether quantities recovered separately may be added up. The proposition attributed to Akhlak @ Vilasan, that separate quantities carried by two persons cannot be clubbed, appears in the petitioners' submissions, as does the Supreme Court's order in Mallikarjun v. State of Karnataka (para 3); the Court's reasons mention Akhlak @ Vilasan but not Mallikarjun (para 6). The Court added that its observations are only for deciding the bail applications and will not affect the trial (para 11).

Legal Principle

A second bail application renewed after the seizure officer's testimony may be allowed on the totality of circumstances: the charge-sheet material, a co-ordinate Bench's observations on separate recoveries, the absence of similar antecedents and the period of custody, while the merits are expressly left to the trial (paras 2, 6, 11).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

This is a bail order, not a ruling on how NDPS quantities are counted. Its practical lesson lies in the sequence. The first bail pleas were withdrawn with liberty to renew them after the seizure officer testified, and the renewed pleas were allowed once his evidence was on record, which, according to the defence, showed a separate recovery from each accused (paras 2-3, 6). The State accepted that each individual quantity was below commercial quantity (para 4). The Court considered the co-ordinate Bench's observations in Akhlak @ Vilasan but made no finding of its own on clubbing and left the merits to the trial (paras 6, 11). On the clubbing point itself, the reasoning to read is Akhlak @ Vilasan.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

Akhlak @ Vilasan & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan 2010(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1542
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 3, 6
Cited by the petitioners as a co-ordinate Bench ruling that separate quantities carried by two persons cannot be clubbed (para 3); the Court considered its observations among the grounds for granting bail (para 6).
Mallikarjun v. The State of Karnataka Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3341/2023, Supreme Court of India
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 3
Cited by the petitioners: bail granted where two accused carried separate bags and clubbing the contraband into commercial quantity was observed to be unjustified (para 3); not mentioned in the Court's reasons (para 6).

Statutory Provisions