Judgment Intelligence
Bail GrantedVikram Saradhana & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
Criminal Appeal No. 4823 of 2026 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 14645 of 2026)
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 8 October 2026
- Bench
- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8 and 29
Final Outcome
Appeal allowed: the Rajasthan High Court's order of 18.11.2025 was set aside and the appellants were ordered to be released on bail on terms fixed by the jurisdictional trial court (para 4).
Key holdings
- An arrest based only on the co-accused's statement weighed in favour of bail (para 4).
- Whether the appellants sold the capsules is left to the trial (para 4).
- No criminal antecedents, a completed investigation and a filed chargesheet were further factors (para 4).
- Bail terms were left to the jurisdictional trial court (para 4).
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
On 26.04.2025 police recovered 878 capsules of Dicyclomine HCl, Tramadol HCl and Acetaminophen (Proxyco SPAS), weighing 412.66 grams, from three co-accused, who were found in conscious physical possession of them. FIR No. 125/2025 was registered under Sections 8 and 29 of the NDPS Act (para 3). Investigation alleged that the appellants, Vikram Saradhana and Mahesh Saradhana, operated 'Shiv Shakti Medical Store', bought commercial quantities of the capsules from a supplier and sold them to the three, taking payment in cash or through PhonePe (para 3). They appealed against the Rajasthan High Court's order of 18.11.2025 in CRLMB No. 6571/2025 at Jaipur, and leave was granted (para 2).
Court's Findings
The Court held that whether the appellants had indulged in the sale of contraband is an issue to be thrashed out during the trial, and noted that they had been apprehended only on the basis of the statement of the co-accused (para 4). It treated the absence of any criminal antecedents as a further factor in favour of bail (para 4). As the investigation had been completed, the chargesheet filed and the trial commenced, their continued incarceration was not warranted (para 4). The appeal was therefore allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the appellants were ordered to be released on bail on terms to be fixed by the jurisdictional trial court (para 4). The order does not discuss Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Legal Principle
Where accused persons are linked to seized contraband only through a co-accused's statement, whether they sold it is a question for trial; with no criminal antecedents, a completed investigation, a filed chargesheet and a trial under way, their continued incarceration is not warranted and bail may be granted (para 4).
