Rajasthan HC Grants Bail Where Samples Were Drawn from Just One of Five Bags

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 26.09.2026

Rajasthan HC Grants Bail Where Samples Were Drawn from Just One of Five Bags

The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to an accused in an NDPS case involving an alleged recovery of 79.400 kg of Doda Chura (poppy straw), after finding that samples for forensic examination were taken from only one out of five bags allegedly recovered from him.

Justice Ganesh Ram Meena held that since no samples were drawn from the remaining four bags, only the material contained in the sampled bag could, at this stage, be treated as the alleged contraband. That bag weighed 19.80 kg, which was below the commercial quantity threshold. Consequently, the stringent restrictions governing bail under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 were not attracted in the circumstances considered by the Court.

Case Arose From Alleged Recovery of 79.400 Kg Doda Chura

• Sitaram alias Udham Meena filed his second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
• The proceedings arose from FIR No. 94/2025, registered at Police Station Harnavda Shahji, District Baran, Rajasthan, for offences under Sections 8, 15 and 25 of the NDPS Act.
• The petitioner’s first bail application had earlier been dismissed as withdrawn by the High Court on 8 May 2026.
• According to the FIR, the alleged contraband—Doda Chura—was recovered from the petitioner’s possession in five separate bags, having a combined weight of 79.400 kg.

Samples Drawn From Only Bag ‘C’

• The petitioner’s principal argument concerned the manner in which the samples were drawn.
• According to the inventory report prepared before the Judicial Officer, two samples were taken only from the packet/bag marked ‘C’. No samples were taken from the remaining four bags for examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL).
• The defence therefore argued that there was no forensic material to establish that the substances contained in bags A, B, D and E were also contraband.
• It was submitted that only the contents of bag C could be treated as alleged contraband for the purpose of considering bail.
• Crucially, bag C weighed only 19.80 kg. The petitioner argued that this was below commercial quantity and hence the restrictions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply.

State: All Five Bags Contained Similar Material

• The Public Prosecutor opposed the second bail application.
• The State argued that samples were taken from only one bag because the material found in the other bags appeared to be the same or similar.
• It further contended that the total alleged recovery was above commercial quantity and therefore the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act continued to apply.
• The High Court, however, did not accept that contention for the purpose of deciding the bail application.

Court Examines Inventory and Judicial Officer’s Certificate

• The High Court examined the record and found that the alleged recovery made on 31 May 2025 had been packed in five separate bags marked A, B, C, D and E.
• The inventory report and certificate issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Chhabra, Baran on 6 June 2025 showed that only two samples, marked F and G, were drawn from bag C.
• No sample was drawn from bags A, B, D or E.
• This factual circumstance became decisive for the bail determination.

Unsampled Bags Could Not Be Treated as Contraband at Bail Stage

• The High Court held that in the absence of samples from the other four bags, the material contained in bag C alone could be treated as the alleged contraband for the purpose under consideration.

The Court recorded:

• “the material which has been found to be in bag marked as-C can only be treated to be alleged contraband”
• Since bag C weighed 19.80 kg, the quantity attributable to the sampled material was below commercial quantity.
• The ruling is significant because the total physical recovery alleged by the prosecution was 79.400 kg. However, for the bail assessment, the Court did not aggregate the contents of the four bags from which no sample had been taken with the sampled bag merely because the substances appeared similar.

Rajasthan HC Relies on Hariram v. State of Rajasthan

• The petitioner relied upon the Rajasthan High Court’s recent order in Hariram v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 741/2026, decided on 20 April 2026.
• In Hariram, six bags were allegedly recovered containing Doda Chura. However, samples had been drawn from only two bags—marked A and E.
• The combined weight of those two sampled bags was 45.400 kg, below the commercial quantity of 50 kg applicable to poppy straw.
• The Court in Hariram observed that because no samples had been taken or sent to the FSL from the remaining bags, those bags could not be treated as containing contraband merely on assumption, particularly when there was nothing on record showing that the entire recovered material had first been mixed and thereafter sampled.
• The same reasoning was applied in Sitaram’s case.

Supreme Court’s Puranmal Jat Decision Considered

The Hariram order, reproduced in the present judgment, also relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in:

• Puranmal Jat v. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal No. 3394/2023 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10670/2023, decided on 2 November 2023.
• In that case, the alleged recovery was approximately 35 kg and 150 grams of Doda Posh/poppy straw, while the commercial quantity was 50 kg.
• The Supreme Court observed that because the recovered quantity was below commercial quantity, the restriction on grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply. The accused had also remained in custody for more than seven months and the charge sheet had already been filed.

Section 37 NDPS Act Not Attracted to 19.80 Kg Sampled Bag

• Applying the above reasoning, the Rajasthan High Court treated 19.80 kg in bag C as the relevant alleged contraband quantity for the bail consideration.
• Because this was below commercial quantity, the defence contention was that the special restrictions under Section 37 were not attracted, and the Court’s reasoning proceeded on that basis.
• This distinction was particularly important because Section 37 imposes stringent conditions for release on bail in cases involving commercial quantity.
• The order, however, is a bail-stage determination and does not finally adjudicate the nature or quantity of the entire seized material.

More Than One Year in Custody

• The Court also took into consideration the period of incarceration.
• Sitaram had remained in custody since 31 May 2025, meaning that by the date of the order on 25 September 2026, he had spent more than one year in custody.
• Considering the sampling issue, the quantity of the sampled bag and the period of custody, the High Court found it just and proper to enlarge him on bail.
• Importantly, the Court expressly stated that it was doing so without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case.

Second Bail Application Allowed

• The Rajasthan High Court accordingly allowed the second bail application.

The Court directed Sitaram alias Udham Meena to be released upon furnishing:

• a personal bond of ₹1,00,000; and
• two sureties of ₹50,000 each,

to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

He was also directed to remain present before the Trial Court, or any court to which the proceedings may be transferred, on subsequent hearing dates and whenever required.

Bail Can Be Cancelled for Similar Future Offence

• The High Court imposed an additional safeguard.
• It directed that if the petitioner is found involved in any other criminal case of a similar nature in the future, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application seeking cancellation of his bail. Sitaram Alias Udham Meena RHC
• Thus, the order grants liberty to the accused pending trial but leaves the prosecution free to seek cancellation if the stipulated condition is breached.

Cases Referred

Two decisions were central to the reasoning recorded in the order:

1. Hariram v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 741/2026, decided on 20 April 2026 — relied upon for the principle that where multiple bags are separately seized but only some are sampled, unsampled bags cannot automatically be treated as contraband in the absence of FSL examination or evidence that the entire material was mixed before sampling.
2. Puranmal Jat v. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal No. 3394/2023 arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 10670/2023, decided on 2 November 2023 — Supreme Court decision noting that where recovered poppy straw was below the stipulated commercial quantity, the Section 37 restriction did not apply.

Key Takeaway

The ruling underscores the importance of representative sampling and forensic examination in multi-bag NDPS recoveries, particularly when the prosecution seeks to rely upon the combined weight to invoke the stringent commercial-quantity bail restrictions under Section 37.

Where five separate bags were allegedly recovered but the inventory showed that samples were taken from only one bag, the Rajasthan High Court treated only the 19.80 kg contained in that sampled bag as the alleged contraband for the purpose of deciding bail. Since that quantity was below commercial quantity and the accused had spent more than a year in custody, the Court granted bail.

The ruling should nevertheless be read in its procedural context: the High Court did not acquit the accused or finally hold that the remaining four bags contained no contraband.

Its determination was confined to the second bail application, and the Court expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Rajasthan High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi