Rajasthan HC Denies Bail To Driver Accused Of Transporting 34.98 Kg Poppy Husk Despite Below-Commercial Quantity, Citing 25 Prior Cases, 19 Under NDPS Act

The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with an FIR alleging offences under Sections 8/15 and 25 of the NDPS Act. Police allegedly recovered 34.980 kg of poppy straw from two bags in a car driven by the petitioner; the alleged quantity was below the notified commercial quantity.

The charge-sheet had been filed, and the petitioner had been in custody since 26 February 2026. He relied on the grant of bail to a co-accused and alleged non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act.

The State opposed bail, relying in particular on the petitioner’s antecedents: 25 registered cases, including 19 under the NDPS Act, with convictions recorded in 11 of those cases and in five of the six other cases.

Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act imposes restrictions on bail in specified cases involving commercial quantity; those restrictions were not attracted on the alleged quantity here, but that fact did not, by itself, entitle the petitioner to bail.

Bail remains a discretionary, fact-specific assessment, including consideration of the accusation, the accused’s role, criminal antecedents, and the likelihood of repetition [*Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee*, (2010) 14 SCC 496; *Ajwar v. Waseem*, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974].

Antecedents are relevant but cannot alone justify refusal; they gain significance where the record prima facie indicates involvement in the alleged offence.

Under *Madan Lal v. State of H.P.*, (2003) 7 SCC 465, possession may be constructive, and the question of conscious possession depends on the facts and statutory presumptions.

Under *Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif*, 2024 INSC 1045, a lapse or delay in complying with Section 52A does not, by itself, entitle an accused to bail or vitiate the trial.

Parity is not automatic where the co-accused’s circumstances, including antecedents, materially differ.

The Court considered the petitioner’s alleged role as the driver of the car carrying the contraband to be prima facie relevant to his involvement, while leaving the ultimate issue of conscious possession to the trial.

Although Section 37’s commercial-quantity restrictions did not apply, the petitioner’s record of repeated NDPS cases and convictions supported an apprehension of further similar offending if released.

The co-accused was distinguishable because he was 19 years old and had no prior antecedents; parity therefore did not assist the petitioner.

The alleged Section 52A lapse was not, standing alone, a sufficient ground for bail, and the completed investigation and period of custody were weighed against the petitioner’s alleged role and antecedents.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not affect the trial court’s independent assessment of the evidence.