Latest
Tuesday, October 27, 2026
Rajasthan High Court
NDPS Act

Only Co-Accused's Statements, No Call Records: Rajasthan High Court Finds Section 37 Satisfied, Grants NDPS Bail

Published: · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur granted bail to two men accused in a case over 379.230 kg of poppy straw, a commercial quantity seized from two co-accused (paras 5, 8). Prima facie, nothing apart from the co-accused's statements connected them with the contraband: no call detail records or location details were collected, and nothing was recovered from them (paras 5-6). For the limited purpose of bail, the Court held the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act satisfied (para 6).

Only Co-Accused's Statements, No Call Records: Rajasthan High Court Finds Section 37 Satisfied, Grants NDPS Bail

Judgment Intelligence

Bail Granted
Rahul v. State of Rajasthan (with Naresh v. State of Rajasthan)
2026:RJ-JD:52237
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3062/2026 (with S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4893/2026)
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Date of Decision
26 October 2026
Bench
Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu
Relevant Acts & Sections
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8, 25, 37; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483; Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — Section 23
Final Outcome

Both bail applications were allowed: Rahul and Naresh are 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 (para 8). The observations are confined to bail, and the trial court will decide independently (para 9).

Source Rajasthan High Court, hcraj.nic.in — order dated 26.10.2026

Key holdings

  1. Only the co-accused's statements connected the petitioners with the 379.230 kg of poppy straw (para 5).
  2. No call detail records or location details linking either petitioner with the co-accused were collected (para 5).
  3. With nothing recovered from their conscious possession, the Court held Section 37 satisfied for the limited purpose of bail (para 6).
  4. Custody undergone, a filed charge-sheet, a long trial ahead and no flight risk also supported bail (para 7).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

Rahul and Naresh, arrested in a 2025 case registered at Police Station Chhotisadri, under Sections 8/25 of the NDPS Act, sought bail under Section 483 of the BNSS (para 1). They said the 379.230 kg of poppy straw was recovered from two co-accused carrying it in a pickup vehicle, that neither petitioner was in the vehicle, and that only the co-accused's statements under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 tied the contraband to them, as belonging to Rahul and meant for Naresh (para 2). They added that no call records were available, the charge-sheet was filed, and they had been in custody since February 2026 (para 3). The Public Prosecutor said the co-accused had named them (para 4).

Court's Findings

The Court recorded that the 379.230 kg of poppy straw, above the commercial quantity, was recovered from two co-accused caught at the spot while transporting it, who named Rahul as the source and Naresh as the intended recipient (para 5). The investigating agency had tried to obtain Rahul's call detail records and location details, but no such material appears to have been collected; nothing on record showed that any was collected for Naresh; and the Investigating Officer's conclusion recorded in the case diary did not indicate any (para 5). Prima facie, therefore, nothing apart from the co-accused's statements connected the petitioners with the contraband or with those found carrying it, and there was no independent corroborative evidence (para 5). On that material, with no recovery from their conscious possession, the Court formed the prima facie opinion that there were reasonable grounds for believing they may not be guilty, and nothing substantial suggested they would offend on bail; for the limited purpose of the bail applications, the twin conditions of Section 37 stood satisfied (para 6). The custody undergone, the completed investigation and charge-sheet, a likely long trial and no material on flight risk also weighed (para 7).

Legal Principle

Where commercial-quantity contraband is recovered from co-accused and the applicant is connected with it only by their statements, with no call detail records, location details or other independent corroboration and no recovery from the applicant, a court may prima facie find the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act satisfied for bail (paras 5-6).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

The order shows how Section 37 can be met when the commercial quantity was seized from others. The poppy straw was with two co-accused; the petitioners were linked only by their statements, and no call detail records or location details linking them were collected, as the case diary's conclusion confirmed (para 5). That gap, with nothing recovered from the petitioners, grounded the Court's prima facie view, confined to bail (paras 6, 9). Bail papers should show what the case diary holds beyond such statements. Related reading: Vikram Saradhana (Supreme Court: bail where the accused were linked only by a co-accused's statement) and Bhopal Singh (a co-accused's statement in police custody, with nothing else connecting the accused, cannot ground a charge).

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

NyayVidhan
Court Judgments · 3 min read
Decided: October 26, 2026 Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu
PDF
Join our WhatsApp Group
✕

Try: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt