Judgment Intelligence
Bail Rejected- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 27 October 2026
- Bench
- Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8, 18, 37, 42, 52A; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483; Arms Act, 1959 — Sections 3, 25
The second bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS was dismissed in view of the material, the facts and the gravity of the offence (paras 18-19). The findings are confined to bail and will not affect the trial on merits (para 19).
Source Rajasthan High Court, hcraj.nic.in — order dated 27.10.2026
Key holdings
- The tip-off, received at 10:50 p.m., was recorded and sent to superiors, with reasons for a warrantless night search (para 11).
- Jag Raj Singh and co-ordinate Bench orders were distinguished as cases where Section 42 was not complied with (para 12).
- A search at a nearby toll plaza, in the same police station area, caused no prejudice at the bail stage (para 13).
- Following Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, delay cannot dilute Section 37's twin conditions (paras 14-15).
- Late samples and a delayed Section 52A inventory are irregularities (para 16).
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
For Section 42 bail pleas, this order turns on the record: whether the tip-off was written down, whether superior officers signed for its receipt, and whether reasons for a warrantless night search were recorded before the search (para 11). Where the record shows all three, a night-search objection did not carry bail in a commercial-quantity case, and the delay plea failed because the record did not show that the trial was being delayed (paras 14-15). Compare Arjun, distinguished here (para 12), where nothing was sent to superior officers and the breach, with long custody, satisfied Section 37, and Nand Kishore (a night search without warrant is valid if the grounds are recorded and sent to the superior).
Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.
Precedents Relied Upon
- State of Rajasthan v. Jag Raj Singh @ Hansa (2016) 11 SCC 687; 2016 INSC 444 2016 INSC 444
Cited by the petitioner on Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The Court respectfully agreed with the law it lays down but distinguished it: there the secret information, after being written down, was not sent to superior officers, whereas here it was sent before the police left for the spot.
- Ramaram v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 3244/2026, Rajasthan High Court, order dated 17 April, 2026
Listed among the decisions cited by the petitioner; not discussed further by the Court.
- Sandeep v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11678/2025, Rajasthan High Court, order dated 13 July, 2026
Co-ordinate Bench order cited by the petitioner; distinguished because in that case the mandatory provisions of Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act had not been complied with.
View all precedents (10)
- Arjun v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3320/2025, Rajasthan High Court, order dated 15 July 2026
Co-ordinate Bench order cited by the petitioner; distinguished because in that case the mandatory provisions of Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act had not been complied with.
- Lalchand v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Misc. Application for Suspension of Sentence No. 1335/2016 in Criminal Appeal No. 916/2016, Rajasthan High Court, order dated 23 March, 2017
Cited by the petitioner; the Court noted that it concerned suspension of sentence.
- Gumanmal v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Suspension of Sentence (Appeal) No. 327/2017 in Criminal Appeal No. 454/2017, Rajasthan High Court, order dated 7 April, 2017
Cited by the petitioner; the Court noted that it concerned suspension of sentence.
- State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora 2026 INSC 411 2026 INSC 411
As stated by the Court: in commercial-quantity NDPS cases both twin conditions of Section 37 are mandatory; the Article 21 right to a speedy trial cannot dilute or override them, and bail cannot be granted merely on delay in the trial or in the appearance of witnesses unless the court is satisfied of both conditions.
- Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh 2025(1) Crimes 137 (SC)
Relied on, with Mohan Lal and Kashif, for holding that an 11-day delay in sending samples does not show prejudice to the accused at the bail stage, and that delayed sampling and a delayed Section 52A inventory are only an irregularity.
- Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2015 SC 2098
Relied on, with Bharat Aambale and Kashif, for holding that an 11-day delay in sending samples does not show prejudice to the accused at the bail stage, and that delayed sampling and a delayed Section 52A inventory are only an irregularity.
Relied on, with Bharat Aambale and Mohan Lal, for holding that an 11-day delay in sending samples does not show prejudice to the accused at the bail stage, and that delayed sampling and a delayed Section 52A inventory are only an irregularity.
