BALVINDER SINGH vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN

[2026:RJ-JD:55037]
REPORTABLE
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5535/2026
CNR: RJHC010409452026 | URN: CRLMB / 12410U / 2026
Balvinder Singh S/o Shri Jagdish Singh, Aged About 35 Years,
R/o Hastakala, P.s. Fazilka Sadar, District Fazilka, Punjab.
(Lodged In District Jail Hanumangarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.K. Haniya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
05/11/2026
1. Date of Conclusion of Arguments 28.10.2026
28.10.2026
2. Date on which Judgment was reserved
3. Whether the Full judgment or only
operative part is pronounced:
Full
4. Date of Pronouncement: 05.11.2026
1. The present bail application has been preferred by the
petitioner under section 483 of the BNSS, in connection with FIR
No. 26/2026 registered at Police Station Pallu, District
Hanumangarh, for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15
and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 (hereinafter, “the NDPS Act”).
2. Briefly stated on 26.02.2026, during a police checking
operation on the Mega Highway connecting Pallu and
(Uploaded on 07/11/2026 at 04:33:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/11/2026 at 05:05:02 PM)

(2 of 17)
[2026:RJ-JD:55037] [CRLMB-5535/2026]
Sardarshahar, a Creta car bearing registration No. HR 26 DD 1801
was intercepted. The petitioner, Balvinder Singh, was allegedly
driving the vehicle, while co-accused Guramanpreet Singh was
seated in the front passenger seat. Upon checking the vehicle, two
plastic bags containing poppy husk weighing 34.980 Kg. in total
were allegedly recovered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been
falsely implicated in the present case and that the alleged
recovery is below commercial quantity, therefore, the restrictions
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted and that the
learned trial court erred in rejecting bail on the basis of his
criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet
has been filed, the petitioner has remained in custody since
26.02.2026 and the trial is likely to take time. Reliance is placed
on the order dated 17.03.2026 passed by a Coordinate Bench of
this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3216/2026,
whereby bail was granted to the co-accused, Guramanpreet Singh.
Learned counsel further alleges non-compliance with the
procedure prescribed under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, and
accordingly prays for grant of bail.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail
application, contending that the petitioner was driving the vehicle
in which the contraband was being transported and that the
recovery was effected from two bags kept therein. It is further
submitted that the impugned order records numerous criminal
antecedents and previous convictions against the petitioner, which
(Uploaded on 07/11/2026 at 04:33:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/11/2026 at 05:05:02 PM)

(3 of 17)
[2026:RJ-JD:55037] [CRLMB-5535/2026]
are relevant to the assessment of his conduct and the likelihood of
repetition of the offence.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. In the present case, 34.980 Kg. of poppy husk is alleged to
have been recovered from the car being driven by the petitioner,
in which co-accused Guramanpreet Singh was seated in the front
passenger seat. The charge-sheet has been filed. The alleged
contraband is below the notified commercial quantity for poppy
straw. As per petitioner's criminal antecedents recorded in
the impugned order, a total of 25 cases have previously
been registered against him, out of which 19 cases are
under NDPS Act, wherein he has been convicted in 11
cases. The remaining 06 cases are of a different nature,
wherein he has been convicted in 05 cases.
7. The principal submission on behalf of the petitioner is that,
since the alleged recovery is below commercial quantity, the
restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted
and the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. It is further
submitted that the criminal antecedents alone do not justify
refusal of bail, particularly when the charge-sheet has been filed
and the petitioner has remained in custody since 26.02.2026. The
petitioner has also relied upon the order granting bail to the co-
accused.
8. The material on record indicates that the petitioner was
allegedly driving the creta car in which two bags of poppy straw
(Uploaded on 07/11/2026 at 04:33:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/11/2026 at 05:05:02 PM)

(4 of 17)
[2026:RJ-JD:55037] [CRLMB-5535/2026]
weighing 19.990 Kg and 14.990 Kg were being transported. The
petitioner has also alleged lapses in drawing of samples and
compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act. At this stage, the
Court is not required to undertake a meticulous examination of the
evidence or record a final finding on the merits of the prosecution
case. The principal question, however, is whether the petitioner is
entitled to bail merely because the alleged recovery is below the
commercial quantity, particularly when his criminal antecedents
disclose several previous cases, including convictions for offences
under the NDPS Act. The alleged quantity does not attract the
restrictions under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act. Nevertheless,
the prayer for bail is required to be examined on its own merits,
having regard to the material available on record and the other
relevant circumstances.
9. It is well settled that the grant or refusal of bail requires a
judicious assessment of the relevant facts and circumstances of
each case. While personal liberty is a valuable constitutional right,
its protection must be balanced with the legitimate interests of
society and the administration of criminal justice. The nature and
gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the accused, the
material available on record, the criminal antecedents and the
likelihood of repetition of the offence are relevant considerations
for bail.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again laid down the
principles for consideration of bail application. In this regard it will
be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
(Uploaded on 07/11/2026 at 04:33:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/11/2026 at 05:05:02 PM)

(5 of 17)
[2026:RJ-JD:55037] [CRLMB-5535/2026]
in the case of Mohseen vs. State of U.P., 2026 INSC 526,
wherein the court observed as under:-
“ 33. This Court has repeatedly emphasised that bail orders must
be reasoned orders that engage with the material on record. In
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 , this Court held
that bail orders must reveal the factors that weighed with the
Court for granting relief, and that a mere recitation of “the facts
and circumstances of the case” without more does not constitute a
reasoned order. Further, in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis
Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 this Court laid down the
principles guiding the assessment of correctness of an order
granting or rejecting bail:
“9. We are of the opinion that the impugned order is
clearly unsustainable. It is trite that this Court does not,
normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court
granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is
equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its
discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance
with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of
decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that,
among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in
mind while considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable
ground to believe that the accused had committed
the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if
released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of
the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant
of bail.”
11. Similarly the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 974 , has reiterated the relevance of
criminal antecedents and probability of repetition while
considering bail. The Court observed:
(Uploaded on 07/11/2026 at 04:33:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/11/2026 at 05:05:02 PM)

(6 of 17)
[2026:RJ-JD:55037] [CRLMB-5535/2026]
“ 26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in
a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must
consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made
against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to
have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role
attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the
accused , the probability of tampering of the witnesses and
repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the
likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event
bail is granted , the possibility of obstructing the proceedings
and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of
releasing the accused on bail.”
12. In Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2016) 15
SCC 422 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the question of
parity vis-à-vis criminal antecedents. The relevant portion of para
13 and 15 are reproduced hereunder :-
“13. We will be failing in our duty if we do not take note of the
concept of liberty and its curtailment by law. It is an established
fact that a crime though committed against an individual, in all
cases it does not retain an individual character. It, on occasions
and in certain offences, accentuates and causes harm to the
society. The victim may be an individual, but in the ultimate
eventuate, it is the society which is the victim. A crime, as is
understood, creates a dent in the law and order situation.
In a civilised society, a crime disturbs orderliness. It
affects the peaceful life of the society. An individual can
enjoy his liberty which is definitely of paramount value
but he cannot be a law unto himself. He cannot cause
harm to others. He cannot be a nuisance to the collective.
He cannot be a terror to the society; and that is why
Edmund Burke, the great English thinker, almost two centuries
and a decade back eloquently spoke thus:-
……….……….
15. This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless
sky that the High Court has totally ignored the criminal
antecedents of the accused. What has weighed with the
High Court is the doctrine of parity. A history-sheeter
involved in the nature of crimes which we have
reproduced hereinabove, are not minor offences so that
he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of
heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of
imagination, can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do
create a thunder and lightning having the effect potentiality of
torrential rain in an analytical mind. The law expects the
judiciary to be alert while admitting these kind of accused
persons to be at large and, therefore, the emphasis is on
exercise of discretion judiciously and not in a whimsical
manner.”
(emphasis supplied)
(Uploaded on 07/11/2026 at 04:33:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/11/2026 at 05:05:02 PM)

(7 of 17)
[2026:RJ-JD:55037] [CRLMB-5535/2026]
13. In Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2026 INSC 144 ,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering Ash Mohammad
v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu, (2012) 9 SCC 446
underscored that criminal antecedents cannot be ignored,
particularly where the nature of allegations and their societal
impact are grave. The Court clarified that while a history-sheeter
is not disentitled to bail as a rule, antecedents constitute a
significant factor in the exercise of judicial discretion.
14. It will be relevant to quote the observation of the Hon'ble
Supreme court made in Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh
(supra) :-
“19. We are absolutely conscious that liberty of a person should
not be lightly dealt with, for deprivation of liberty of a person has
immense impact on the mind of a person. Incarceration creates a
concavity in the personality of an individual. Sometimes it causes
a sense of vacuum. Needless to emphasize, the sacrosanctity of
liberty is paramount in a civilized society. However, in a
democratic body polity which is wedded to Rule of Law an
individual is expected to grow within the social restrictions
sanctioned by law. The individual liberty is restricted by larger
social interest and its deprivation must have due sanction of law.
In an orderly society an individual is expected to live with
dignity having respect for law and also giving due respect
to others’ rights . It is a well accepted principle that the
concept of liberty is not in the realm of absolutism but is a
restricted one . The cry of the collective for justice, its desire for
peace and harmony and its necessity for security cannot be
allowed to be trivialized. The life of an individual living in a
society governed by Rule of Law has to be regulated and
such regulations which are the source in law subserve the
social balance and function as a significant instrument for
protection of human rights and security of the collective .
It is because fundamentally laws are made for their obedience
so that every member of the society lives peacefully in a society
to achieve his individual as well as social interest. That is
why Edmond Burke while discussing about liberty opined,
‘it is regulated freedom’.
20. It is also to be kept in mind that individual liberty cannot be
accentuated to such an extent or elevated to such a high pedestal
which would bring in anarchy or disorder in the society. The
prospect of greater justice requires that law and order should
prevail in a civilized milieu. True it is, there can be no arithmetical
(Uploaded on 07/11/2026 at 04:33:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/11/2026 at 05:05:02 PM)

(8 of 17)
[2026:RJ-JD:55037] [CRLMB-5535/2026]
formula for fixing the parameters in precise exactitude but the
adjudication should express not only application of mind but also
exercise of jurisdiction on accepted and established norms. Law
and order in a society protect the established precepts and see to
it that contagious crimes do not become epidemic. In an
organized society the concept of liberty basically requires citizens
to be responsible and not to disturb the tranquility and safety
which every well-meaning person desires. Not for nothing J.
Oerter stated:
‘Personal liberty is the right to act without interference
within the limits of the law.’
21. Thus analyzed, it is clear that though liberty is a greatly
cherished value in the life of an individual, it is a controlled and
restricted one and no element in the society can act in a manner
by consequence of which the life or liberty of others is
jeopardized, for the rational collective does not countenance an
anti-social or anti-collective act.” (emphasis supplied)
15. In State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, (2026) 8 SCC
223 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court relying on Pinki v. State of
Uttar Pradesh, (2025) 7 SCC 314 , held that while personal
liberty is a cherished constitutional value, it is not absolute.
Liberty must yield where it poses a threat to the collective interest
of society. No individual can claim a liberty that endangers the life
or liberty of others, as the rational collective cannot tolerate anti-
social or anti-collective conduct. The Court further emphasised the
importance of obedience to law in the following words:
“Obedience to law is demanded as a right, not asked as a
favour. The need of the hour is to maintain the Rule of law
at all times.”
16. The aforesaid judgments make it clear that the criminal
antecedents of an accused and the likelihood of repetition of the
offence are not extraneous considerations, rather are relevant
factors in the judicial assessment of a bail application. However,
the criminal antecedents of an accused cannot be considered in
(Uploaded on 07/11/2026 at 04:33:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/11/2026 at 05:05:02 PM)

(9 of 17)
[2026:RJ-JD:55037] [CRLMB-5535/2026]
isolation or made the sole ground for refusing bail. If there is no
prima facie material on record indicating the involvement of the
accused in the offence alleged, mere record of previous criminal
antecedents would be of no consequence. It is only when the
material on record prima facie indicates his involvement in the
case, his previous criminal antecedents become relevant for
assessing the likelihood of him further indulging in similar
activities if released on bail.
17. In the present case, the material on record revels that the
petitioner was driving the Creta car from which the police had
recovered 2 bags containing 34.980 KG of poppy straw. Position in
law relating to conscious possession has been dealt with in detail
by Hon’ble Supreme court in Madan Lal and Anr. Vs. State of
H.P., 2003 (7) SCC 465 , wherein it was observed as under :-
"19. Whether there was conscious possession has to be determined
with reference to the factual backdrop. The facts which can be
culled out from the evidence on record are that all the accused
persons were travelling in a vehicle, and as noted by the trial court,
they were known to each other, and it has not been explained or
shown as to how they travelled together from the same destination
in a vehicle which was not a public vehicle.
20. Section 20 (b) makes possession of contraband articles an
offence. Section 20 appears in Chapter IV of the Act, which relates
to offences for possession of such articles. It is submitted that to
make the possession illicit, there must be conscious possession.
21. It is highlighted that unless the possession was coupled with
the requisite mental element, i.e., conscious possession and not
mere custody without awareness of the nature of such possession,
Section 20 is not attracted.
22. The expression "possession" is a polymorphous term that
assumes different colours in different contexts. It may carry
different meanings in contextually different backgrounds. It is
impossible, as was observed in the Supdt. & Remembrancer of
Legal Affairs, W.B. v. Anil Kumar Bhunja to work out a completely
logical and precise definition of "possession" uniformly applicable to
all situations in the context of all statutes.
(Uploaded on 07/11/2026 at 04:33:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/11/2026 at 05:05:02 PM)

(10 of 17)
[2026:RJ-JD:55037] [CRLMB-5535/2026]
23. The word "conscious" means awareness of a particular fact. It
is a state of mind which is deliberate or intended.
24. As noted in Gunwantlal v State of M.P. possession in a given
case need not be physical possession but can be constructive,
having power and control over the article in the case in question,
while the person to whom physical possession is given holds it
subject to that power or control.
25. The word "possession" means the legal right to possession
(see Heath v. Drown). In an interesting case, it was observed that
where a person keeps his firearm in his mother's flat, which is
safer than his own home, he must be considered to be in
possession of the same.
26. Once possession is established, the person who claims that it
was not a conscious possession has to establish it because how he
came to be in possession is within his special knowledge. Section
35 of the Act gives a statutory recognition of this position because
of the presumption available in law. Similar is the position in terms
of Section 54, where a presumption is also available to be drawn
from possession of illicit articles.
27. In the factual scenario of the present case, not only
possession but conscious possession has been established. It has
not been shown by the accused-appellants that the possession
was not conscious in the logical background of Sections 35 and 54
of the Act."
18. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the
petitioner was allegedly driving the vehicle in which the
contraband was being transported. His position as the driver,
coupled with the circumstances surrounding the recovery,
constitutes relevant material for examining his prima facie
involvement in the offence. At this stage, the Court is not required
to record a final finding on the question of conscious possession,
that issue would be determined by the trial court on the basis of
the evidence led during trial. However, for the purpose of deciding
the present bail application, the material available on record
cannot be disregarded while assessing the petitioner's alleged role
in the transportation of the contraband.
19. Once such prima facie material is available, the criminal
antecedents then become relevant while examining his prayer for
(Uploaded on 07/11/2026 at 04:33:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/11/2026 at 05:05:02 PM)

(11 of 17)
[2026:RJ-JD:55037] [CRLMB-5535/2026]
bail. The criminal antecedent record of the petitioner shows that
as many as 25 criminal cases have been registered against him,
out of which 19 cases relate to offences under the NDPS Act. The
Court is required to consider, having regard to such antecedents,
whether his release may give rise to a likelihood of his again
indulging in similar unlawful activities, thereby posing a potential
threat to society
20. The aforesaid considerations assume particular significance
in cases involving offences under the NDPS Act, having regard to
the object and purpose of the legislation and the impact of illicit
narcotics trafficking on society. The Act has been enacted to make
stringent provisions for controlling and regulating activities
relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The
impact of such offences is not confined to the individual accused
but extends to society as a whole. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, 2024 INSC 1045 , while
explaining the object and purpose of the Act, observed as under:—
“7. A three-judge bench in case of Hira Singh and Another Vs. Union
of India and Another, (2020) 20 SCC 272 expressing serious concern
about the problem of drug addicts and mafia at the national and
international level had observed that the provisions of NDPS Act are
required to be interpreted keeping in mind the object and purpose of
the said Act and the impact on the society as a whole. It was also
observed that the Act is required to be interpreted literally and not
liberally which may ultimately frustrate the object, purpose and
Preamble of the Act. The precise observations made therein are
reproduced hereunder:—
“10.5. The problem of drug addicts is international and the
mafia is working throughout the world. It is a crime against
the society and it has to be dealt with iron hands. Use of drugs
by the young people in India has increased. The drugs are
being used for weakening of the nation. During the British
regime control was kept on the traffic of dangerous drugs by
enforcing the Opium Act, 1857 the Opium Act, 1875 and the
Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930. However, with the passage of
(Uploaded on 07/11/2026 at 04:33:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/11/2026 at 05:05:02 PM)

(12 of 17)
[2026:RJ-JD:55037] [CRLMB-5535/2026]
time and the development in the field of illicit drug traffic and
during abuse at national and international level, many
deficiencies in the existing laws have come to notice.
Therefore, in order to remove such deficiencies and
difficulties, there was urgent need for the enactment of a
comprehensive legislation on narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances, which led to enactment of the NDPS Act. As
observed hereinabove, the Act is a special law and has a
laudable purpose to serve and is intended to combat the
menace otherwise bent upon destroying the public health and
national health. The guilty must be in and the innocent ones
must be out. The punishment part in drug trafficking is an
important one but its preventive part is more important.
Therefore, prevention of illicit traffic in the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 came to be introduced.
The aim was to prevent illicit traffic rather than punish after
the offence was committed. Therefore, the courts will have to
safeguard the life and liberty of the innocent persons.
Therefore, the provisions of the NDPS Act are required to be
interpreted keeping in mind the object and purpose of the
NDPS Act; impact on the society as a whole and the Act is
required to be interpreted literally and not liberally which may
ultimately frustrate the object, purpose and Preamble of the
Act. Therefore, the interpretation of the relevant provisions of
the statute canvassed on behalf of the accused and the
intervener that quantity of neutral substance(s) is not to be
taken into consideration and it is only actual content of the
weight of the offending drug, which is relevant for the purpose
of determining whether it would constitute ‘small quantity or
commercial quantity’, cannot be accepted.”
21. Though the alleged recovery in the present case is below
commercial quantity, and therefore, the restrictions contained in
Section 37 of the NDPS Act may not be attracted on that count,
but that does not by itself entitle the petitioner to bail. This Court
is also conscious of the growing tendency of persons involved in
illicit narcotics trafficking to transport contraband in quantities
below the commercial threshold, with a view to circumventing the
stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Hence, the
quantity of contraband cannot be treated as the sole consideration
while deciding a bail application. The criminal antecedents of the
accused, his role in the alleged offence and the likelihood of his
(Uploaded on 07/11/2026 at 04:33:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/11/2026 at 05:05:02 PM)

(13 of 17)
[2026:RJ-JD:55037] [CRLMB-5535/2026]
reverting to similar unlawful activities upon release on bail,
thereby posing a potential threat to society, are also relevant
considerations. In this regard, the observations made by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Rajesh Jain @ Munna Jain v.
State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
4680/2024, decided on 03.09.2024, are relevant:-
“In the opinion of this Court, merely because the petitioner is
implicated for accusation relating to small or intermediate
quantity of contraband cannot ipso facto confer a right of bail, on
such a suspect or accused. The leaders of organized crime often
exploit vulnerable individuals, such as the indigent, poor,
unemployed, or those with financial obligations, by enticing them
to act as small peddlers for the trafficking of small and
intermediate quantities of contraband. They believe they can
escape arrest, or the ‘so-called vicious cycle’, if the quantity is
small or intermediate. These peddlers often become habitual
offenders being involved in numerous cases under NDPS, like the
present petitioner against whom fifteen criminal cases are
registered for offence under Section NDPS Act, thus, petitioner
misused the liberty granted to him again and again, therefore,
it becomes an important ingredient while examining claim for
bail. The bail applications filed under the guise of small or below
commercial quantities can give a suspect leverage to continue
inhumane trade and nefarious activities, thereby destroying
society and exploitation of youth. Such individuals are causing
harm to the health of those caught in such illegal activities. Thus,
the enlargement on bail is likelihood to give rise to similar
offence(s) being repeated by the bail petitioner, which shall
certainly cause further damage and exploitation to the society at
large.”
22. Similar observations have also been made by another
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Karan Mehra v. State of
Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
8926/2025 , while considering the question of grant of bail in a
case involving transportation of contraband below the commercial
threshold. The Court observed as under:-
“………..It is becoming a rather common tactic of organized
drug syndicates to import drugs in quantities just below
the commercial threshold to deliberately circumvent the
strict provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. This is a
calculated move to secure easy bail and continue their
(Uploaded on 07/11/2026 at 04:33:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/11/2026 at 05:05:02 PM)

(14 of 17)
[2026:RJ-JD:55037] [CRLMB-5535/2026]
illegal operations without significant disruption. Granting
bail in such a situation would be tantamount to
encouraging this very tactic and would render the law’s
intent to combat large-scale drug trafficking ineffective. It
would send a clear message that as long as traffickers keep their
consignments below a certain weight, they can operate with
relative impunity. The devastating impact of this type of trafficking
on the youth of our nation cannot be overstated. Drug syndicates
are increasingly targeting highly educated individuals, including
university students and young professionals from well-off families.
They are lured into these schemes with promises of easy money,
all-expenses-paid trips, and luxurious lifestyles. These educated
and privileged youth are often seen as less likely to be suspected
by law enforcement, making them ideal drug mules. Their naivety
and desire for quick wealth are exploited, leading to addiction and
a complete ruin of their academic and professional careers. They
become not just consumers but cogs in a larger criminal machine,
a situation far more worrying than simple drug use. While the
petitioner's counsel has emphasized the long period of custody
and the completion of the charge sheet, these factors do not
automatically entitle the petitioner to bail. The nature of the
offence and the likelihood of the accused to abscond or
interfere with the investigation, as well as the potential for
them to continue their illegal activities, are paramount
considerations . Given the high-value contraband and the
sophisticated nature of the crime, there is a significant risk that
the petitioner could flee or attempt to influence witnesses if
released. The duration of custody is not a standalone reason to
grant bail when the very act of granting it could undermine the
larger fight against drug trafficking. The arguments presented by
the respondents regarding the nature and value of the drug, the
sophisticated modus operandi, and the potential link to organized
crime are compelling and cannot be dismissed. The court must
prioritize the public interest and the need to send a strong
message against drug trafficking, even when the recovered
quantity is technically below the commercial threshold. To grant
bail would be to ignore the very essence of the NDPS Act and the
evolving challenges posed by modern drug syndicates.”
23. The petitioner has also questioned compliance with Section
52A of the NDPS Act, contending that the prescribed procedure
relating to sampling was not followed. In Narcotics Control
Bureau v. Kashif (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
considered the effect of non-compliance with the procedure
prescribed under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and observed that
any procedural illegality in conducting the search and seizure by
itself would not make the entire evidence collected thereby
(Uploaded on 07/11/2026 at 04:33:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/11/2026 at 05:05:02 PM)

(15 of 17)
[2026:RJ-JD:55037] [CRLMB-5535/2026]
inadmissible, nor entitle the accused to be released on bail. The
relevant para is quoted as under : -
“39. The upshot of the above discussion may be summarized as under:
(iv) Sub-section (2) of Section 52A lays down the procedure as
contemplated in sub-section (1) thereof, and any lapse or delayed
compliance thereof would be merely a procedural irregularity
which would neither entitle the accused to be released on bail nor
would vitiate the trial on that ground alone.
(v) Any procedural irregularity or illegality found to have been
committed in conducting the search and seizure during the course
of investigation or thereafter, would by itself not make the entire
evidence collected during the course of investigation,
inadmissible. The Court would have to consider all the
circumstances and find out whether any serious prejudice has
been caused to the accused.
(vi) Any lapse or delay in compliance of Section 52A by itself
would neither vitiate the trial nor would entitle the accused to be
released on bail. The Court will have to consider other
circumstances and the other primary evidence collected during
the course of investigation, as also the statutory presumption
permissible under Section 54 of the NDPS Act.”
24. In the present case, in light of the aforesaid legal position, at
this stage the alleged procedural lapse by itself does not furnish
sufficient ground for grant of bail. The question of admissibility
and evidentiary value of the material collected during
investigation, including the effect of any procedural lapse, shall
remain open for consideration by the trial court in accordance with
law.
25. The petitioner has also sought parity with co-accused
Guramanpreet Singh, who was granted bail by this Court vide
order dated 17.03.2026. The grant of bail to a co-accused is
certainly a relevant consideration, but the petitioner in the present
case cannot seek parity, as Guramanpreet Singh had no previous
antecedent at all, and was a young boy of only 19 years, who had
accompanied the petitioner.
(Uploaded on 07/11/2026 at 04:33:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/11/2026 at 05:05:02 PM)

(16 of 17)
[2026:RJ-JD:55037] [CRLMB-5535/2026]
26. The investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet
has been filed. The petitioner has remained in custody since
26.02.2026, and the trial may take some time to conclude.
However, these circumstances, though relevant, cannot be
considered in isolation and have to be weighed against the
petitioner's alleged role in the transportation of the contraband
and his criminal antecedents.
27. Upon a cumulative consideration of the material available on
record and the submissions advanced by the respective parties,
this Court finds that the alleged recovery being below commercial
quantity cannot be considered in isolation. The material on record
prima facie indicates the petitioner's involvement in the present
offence. His criminal antecedents, particularly the repeated
registration of cases under the NDPS Act, also give rise to an
apprehension that he may indulge in similar activities if released
on bail. The liberty of an individual cannot be considered in
disregard of the potential harm to society. The circumstances
relating to completion of investigation, the period of custody, the
grant of bail to the co-accused and the objection concerning
Section 52A of the NDPS Act have also been duly considered.
However, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of
the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on
bail.
28. Consequently, the present bail application preferred by
the petitioner Balvinder Singh S/o Shri Jagdish Singh, in
FIR No. 26/2026 registered at Police Station Pallu, District
Hanumangarh, is Dismissed.
(Uploaded on 07/11/2026 at 04:33:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/11/2026 at 05:05:02 PM)

(17 of 17)
[2026:RJ-JD:55037] [CRLMB-5535/2026]
29. Needless to observe that the observations made hereinabove
are confined to the consideration of the present bail application
and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the
merits of the case. The trial court shall decide the case
independently, on the basis of the evidence available on record
and in accordance with law.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
Crt_21 (2022)
S-A/228
Deepak
(Uploaded on 07/11/2026 at 04:33:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/11/2026 at 05:05:02 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)