Chhattisgarh High CourtCriminal LawCriminal Procedure and Evidence

Bail denied where commercial-quantity seizure and prima facie conspiracy evidence trigger Section 37 NDPS rigours.

RAJARAM PALv.DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE RAIPUR

Bail denied where commercial-quantity seizure and prima facie conspiracy evidence trigger Section 37 NDPS rigours.. RAJARAM PAL vs DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE RAIPUR. Chhattisgarh High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

Whether the applicants were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in view of the alleged seizure of 271.641 kg of ganja, substantially exceeding the notified commercial quantity

The court held

The Court answered the bail issue against the applicants and rejected the first regular bail application of Rajaram Pal and Shishupal Rajput in connection with Crime No. 47/2025 registered at Police Station DRI, Raipur, for offences under the NDPS Act

It also directed

The trial court was directed to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously, and a certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for information and compliance

01Facts

On 31 October 2025, acting on secret information, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted a Tata Harrier allegedly transporting ganja near Kumhari Toll Plaza.

The authorities seized 271.641 kg of ganja contained in 265 packets from the alleged joint possession of Rajaram Pal and Shishupal Rajput.

A case was registered under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

The investigation was completed and the charge-sheet was filed; the prosecution alleged, on the basis of accused-memorandum statements, the involvement of other co-accused in the procurement and transportation conspiracy

¶ 2

The applicants, in custody since 31 October 2025, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that the safeguards under Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act had not been complied with, that conscious possession was not established, and that the trial would be delayed.

¶ 3

One of ten prosecution witnesses had been examined

¶ 3

The prosecution opposed bail, relying on the commercial quantity involved and the rejection of bail applications filed by two co-accused

¶ 4

02Issues

i.Whether the applicants were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in view of the alleged seizure of 271.641 kg of ganja, substantially exceeding the notified commercial quantity

¶ 1, 6

ii.Whether the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were satisfied so as to permit the applicants’ release on bail

¶ 6

iii.Whether the applicants’ submissions regarding non-compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act, completion of investigation, absence of criminal antecedents, and likely delay in trial justified bail despite the applicability of Section 37

¶ 3

03Law Applied

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

It applied Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act, relating respectively to prohibited dealings, possession or transportation of commercial-quantity cannabis, liability concerning premises or vehicles, financing or harbouring drug-trafficking activities, and criminal conspiracy

¶ 1, 7

Since the seized ganja substantially exceeded the notified commercial quantity of 20 kg, Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied; bail could therefore be granted only if the Court was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accused were not guilty and that they were unlikely to commit an offence while on bail

¶ 6

The Court also considered the prima facie evidentiary material collected during investigation and the principle of parity in light of the rejection of bail applications filed by co-accused

¶ 4, 6

Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 8Section 20Section 25Section 29Section 37Section 42Section 50

04Reasoning

The Court found that 271.641 kg of ganja had allegedly been seized from the vehicle under the joint possession of the applicants, a quantity far above the commercial threshold of 20 kg; consequently, the stringent conditions of Section 37 were attracted

¶ 6

The material in the case diary, including the memorandum statements of the accused, prima facie indicated the applicants’ involvement in the procurement and transportation of the contraband pursuant to an alleged conspiracy

¶ 6

Although the applicants relied on the filing of the charge-sheet, the absence of antecedents, alleged violations of Sections 42 and 50, and the anticipated delay in trial, the Court did not find these circumstances sufficient to satisfy the twin requirements of Section 37.

¶ 4, 6

The rejection of bail applications of co-accused Ajay Rajput and Anand Mishra also weighed against the applicants

¶ 4, 6

Considering the substantial commercial quantity, gravity of the offences, prima facie material, and statutory bar under Section 37, the Court held that the applicants had not made out a fit case for bail

¶ 6

05Holding

The Court answered the bail issue against the applicants and rejected the first regular bail application of Rajaram Pal and Shishupal Rajput in connection with Crime No. 47/2025 registered at Police Station DRI, Raipur, for offences under the NDPS Act

¶ 7

The trial court was directed to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously, and a certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for information and compliance

¶ 8–9
Chhattisgarh High Court

Original Court PDF

RAJARAM PALvsDIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE RAIPUR

Chhattisgarh High Court · August 31, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment