Separate NDPS Recoveries and Default Bail: Rajasthan HC

Separate NDPS Recoveries Cannot Be Clubbed to Deny Default Bail: Rajasthan High Court

Published: 24 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court allowed a criminal revision by two heroin accused and directed their release on bail under Section 167(2) CrPC (para 16). The Additional Sessions Judge had treated separate recoveries from four accused as joint possession of 760 grams, a commercial quantity (para 6). The High Court held that separate recoveries cannot be clubbed, so 200 grams each attracted the 60-day charge-sheet limit, and that the later charge-sheet did not defeat the right already exercised (paras 9-13).

Key holdings

Separate recoveries from the pockets of four accused cannot be treated as a joint recovery of 760 grams of heroin (para 6).

Each petitioner's 200 grams is below the commercial quantity of 250 grams of heroin, so the charge-sheet period is 60 days (paras 5, 10).

No charge-sheet was filed within 60 days of the arrest on 19.07.2021; 73 days had passed by the impugned order (para 10).

A Section 167(2) application made before the charge-sheet is not defeated by its later filing (paras 12-13).

The proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC applies to offences under the NDPS Act (para 14).

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

According to the FIR, a solid powder-like substance was recovered from the pockets of four accused: 160 grams from one co-accused and 200 grams each from the two petitioners and another co-accused (paras 3, 5). The petitioners were arrested on 19.07.2021, and no charge-sheet had been filed by 30.09.2021 (paras 3, 10). On that date the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, rejected their application under Section 167(2) CrPC in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 236/2021, recording joint possession of 760 grams of heroin, a commercial quantity (paras 1, 6). In revision they argued that each recovery was below commercial quantity, relying on Roteen Barman; the State opposed (paras 3-4).

Court's Findings

The Court found that, although the impugned order recorded joint possession of 760 grams of heroin, the FIR showed separate quantities recovered from the pocket of each of the four accused, and contraband recovered separately cannot be treated as a joint recovery (para 6). It quoted Roteen Barman v. State of Rajasthan, where a co-ordinate Bench refused to club recoveries from separate bags merely because the accused were named in one FIR, and that ruling's view that the charge-sheet period is 60 days under Section 167(2) where the quantity is below commercial quantity but 180 days under the NDPS Act where it is commercial (paras 6-8). Following it, the Court took each petitioner's recovery as 200 grams, below the commercial quantity of 250 grams of heroin (paras 5, 9-10). The application was made after 60 days; 73 days had passed by the impugned order, and the charge-sheet, numbered 178/17.10.2021, came later (paras 10-11). Relying on Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that the right exercised before the charge-sheet survived its filing (paras 12-13), and, citing Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, that Section 167 applies to NDPS cases (para 14).

Legal Principle

Contraband recovered separately from each accused cannot be added up into a joint commercial quantity merely because they are named in one FIR. Where each recovery is below commercial quantity, the charge-sheet period under Section 167(2) CrPC is 60 days, and a default-bail application made before the charge-sheet survives its later filing (paras 6, 9-10, 12-13).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

Default bail in an NDPS case can turn on whether the prosecution may add up what was found on different accused. Here the Additional Sessions Judge treated four separate pocket recoveries as joint possession of 760 grams of heroin, a commercial quantity, and rejected the Section 167(2) application (paras 1, 6). The High Court went by what the FIR recorded against each accused, 200 grams for each petitioner, and applied the 60-day limit (paras 6, 9-10). The timing also mattered: the application was made before the charge-sheet, so its later filing did not defeat the right (paras 12-13). On adding up separate quantities, see also Akhlak @ Vilsan, where quantities recovered separately from co-accused were not added together.

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

Precedents Relied Upon

Roteen Barman v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 2312/2012, Rajasthan High Court, decided 09.10.2012
Followed Discussed at ¶ 3, 6, 7, 8, 9
Recoveries from separate bags carried by each accused cannot be clubbed to reach commercial quantity merely because they are accused in one FIR; where the quantity is below commercial quantity the charge-sheet period under Section 167(2) CrPC is 60 days. Cited by the petitioners (para 3); quoted and followed by the Court (paras 6-9).
Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2001 SC 1910
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 12, 13
Where the charge-sheet is not filed within 60 or 90 days and the accused applies for bail under Section 167(2) and offers bail, a later charge-sheet after an erroneous rejection does not extinguish the accrued right to bail; applied because the petitioners applied before the charge-sheet (paras 12-13).
Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1999 SC 1403
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 14
The benefit of the proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC is available to an accused under the NDPS Act; its para 7 (which cites Union of India v. Thamisharasi) is quoted (para 14).

Statutory Provisions