Opium Counted Per Accused, Not Combined: Rajasthan High Court Bails Alleged Supplier With No Recovery

Published: 24 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur granted bail, on a second application, to a man accused of supplying opium in a CBN Pratapgarh case under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act; his counsel said nothing was recovered from him (paras 1, 3, 8). Following Akhlak @ Vilsan, the Court counted the opium found with riders of two motorcycles per accused, each below commercial quantity, and noted the possessors' bail and his custody of about a year (paras 6-7).

Opium Counted Per Accused, Not Combined: Rajasthan High Court Bails Alleged Supplier With No Recovery

Judgment Intelligence

Bail Granted

Sanni v. C.B.N., Pratapgarh

2026:RJ-JD:6737

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 10917/2025

Court: Rajasthan High Court
Date of Decision: 5 February 2026
Bench: Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali
Relevant Acts & Sections: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8, 18; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483

Final Outcome

Second bail application allowed; the petitioner to be released on bail, if not required in any other case, on a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh with two reliable sureties of Rs 50,000 each to the trial court's satisfaction, undertaking to appear on fixed dates and whenever summoned (para 8).

Source Rajasthan High Court, hcraj.nic.in — order dated 05.02.2026

View PDF View Full Judgment Text

Key holdings

Recoveries from riders of two separate motorcycles, each below commercial quantity, were not combined into a commercial quantity (para 6).
Following Akhlak @ Vilsan, the quantity is counted according to what is found with each accused (para 6).
The Court relied on the bail already granted to those found in possession, about a year in custody and 7 of 9 witnesses still to be examined (paras 6-7).
The defence said he escaped from custody on 27.02.2025 and was re-arrested two hours later; the Court's reasons do not discuss it (paras 3, 6-7).

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 case arose from FIR No. 01/2024 of Police Station CBN, Pratapgarh, under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act; the petitioner's first bail application was rejected on 16.05.2025 (paras 1-2). His counsel said that 2.002 kg of opium was recovered from the joint possession of one co-accused and another child in conflict with law, and 1.034 kg from two children in conflict with law, each below commercial quantity but 3.036 kg together (para 3). The petitioner was accused of supplying it; nothing was recovered from him (para 3). The prosecution accepted that each recovery was below commercial quantity, but opposed bail on the combined quantity and the allegation that he sold opium (para 4).

Court's Findings

After considering both sides and the record (para 5), the Court noted that the opium recovered from the persons riding two separate motorcycles was below commercial quantity for each of them, though above it when combined (para 6). Following Akhlak @ Vilsan v. State of Rajasthan, 2010 (2) CriLR 1542, it stated that where contraband is recovered from two or more accused, the quantity is to be counted according to what is found with each accused (para 6). It recorded that the accused from whose possession the opium was recovered had already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench, that the petitioner had been in custody for about a year, that the statements of 7 of the 9 witnesses were said to remain to be recorded, and that the trial would take time (para 6). Weighing the facts, the circumstances, the arguments and the period of custody, and without commenting on the merits, the Court found it proper to give the petitioner the benefit of bail (para 7). The supply allegation and the escape from custody appear only in the submissions; the Court's reasons do not discuss them separately (paras 3-4, 6-7).

Legal Principle

Where opium is recovered separately from two or more accused, the quantity is counted according to what is found with each accused, not added up, following Akhlak @ Vilsan. With the possessors already on bail, about a year in custody and most witnesses still to be examined, bail may be granted without comment on the merits (paras 6-7).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

Here the separate-recovery rule helped an alleged opium supplier from whom, his counsel said, nothing was recovered (para 3). The prosecution accepted that each recovery from the four riders of two motorcycles was below commercial quantity but relied on the total (para 4). Following Akhlak @ Vilsan, the Court counted the opium per accused and noted that those found with it were on bail (para 6). It did not separately weigh the supply allegation; about a year in custody and the pending evidence counted too (paras 6-7). Bail papers should show what was recovered from whom. Related reading: Nasir (recovery from another person cannot be clubbed) and Kanwalpreet Singh (Punjab and Haryana: bail on the accused's own 200 g recovery).

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 @ Vilsan v. State of Rajasthan 2010 (2) CriLR 1542 = 2010 WLC 553
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 6
Where contraband is recovered from two or more accused, the quantity is counted according to what is found with each accused; applied to hold that separate recoveries from riders of two motorcycles, each below commercial quantity, are not combined (para 6).