The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to an accused in an NDPS case while simultaneously raising an important legal question about the jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrates in granting bail for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the issue requires detailed consideration and sought assistance from the Bar before deciding the larger legal question.
Background of the Case
The bail application was filed by Kaluram under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in connection with FIR No. 94/2026 registered at Police Station Sarwar, Ajmer, for offences under Sections 8/15 of the NDPS Act. According to the prosecution, 7.550 kilograms of Doda Post was recovered at the instance of co-accused Jodharam.
Counsel for Kaluram argued that no recovery had been made from him and that his implication was based solely on the disclosure statement of the co-accused recorded under Section 23(2) of the Indian Evidence Act. It was also submitted that the applicant had no criminal antecedents and that the trial was likely to take considerable time.
The State opposed the plea for bail.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Court's Observation
After hearing both sides, Justice Dhand noted that the alleged contraband had been recovered from the co-accused and not from the applicant. The Court also considered that Kaluram had been implicated on the basis of information allegedly supplied by the co-accused and that the trial would take time to conclude.
Granting relief without commenting on the merits of the prosecution's case, the Court observed:
“Considering the arguments... and without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and appropriate to grant indulgence of bail to the applicant under Section 483 BNSS.”
Larger Legal Issue Raised by the Court
While allowing the bail application, the High Court noticed that the co-accused had earlier been granted bail by a Judicial Magistrate despite the case involving offences under the NDPS Act.
The Court referred to Sections 36 and 36A of the NDPS Act, which provide that offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding three years are triable exclusively by Special Courts. It observed that where a Magistrate considers further detention unnecessary in such cases, the accused should ordinarily be forwarded to the competent Special Court instead of being released on bail.
Justice Dhand remarked:
“The legislature thought it fit to impose an embargo over the power of Magistrate in the matters of bail relating to any offence under the NDPS Act.”
Finding the issue significant, the Court framed the following question for consideration:
“Whether a Judicial Magistrate is having jurisdiction to hear and decide the bail application filed by the accused for the offence punishable under the NDPS Act, more particularly when Special Courts have been constituted for trial of such offences?”
Decision
The High Court allowed Kaluram's bail application and directed that he be released upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 along with two surety bonds of ₹25,000 each, subject to the satisfaction of the trial court and his appearance on all dates of hearing.
At the same time, the Court requested members of the Bar to assist on the legal issue concerning the jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrates in NDPS bail matters, directed the Registrar (Judicial) to publish a note in the cause list inviting assistance, sought an explanation from the concerned Judicial Magistrate, and listed the matter for further hearing on 9 July 2026
Case Details:
Case Title: Kaluram v. State of Rajasthan
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9702/2026
Judge: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
Decision Date: 29 June 2026
