In NDPS litigation, quantity is destiny — but the margins matter. On 22 September 2026, Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur in Tejmal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12337/2026, granted regular bail on a second application to an accused charged under Sections 8/15 and 29 of the NDPS Act for allegedly escorting a consignment of 61.150 kg of poppy husk — a quantity only marginally above the 50 kg mark at which the stringent regime for commercial quantity begins.
The allegation
FIR No. 0054/2026, Police Station Barmer Rural, alleged transportation of poppy husk. According to the prosecution, co-accused persons carried the contraband in one vehicle while Tejmal Singh escorted it in another. The recovery totalled 61.150 kg. He was arrested on 4 April 2026; the chargesheet was filed under Sections 8/15 and 29 of the NDPS Act. An earlier bail application having failed, he applied again — a course permissible where circumstances have developed, such as completed investigation and lengthening custody.
The quantity question
Prosecution\'s position
The recovery is commercial quantity (above 50 kg for poppy husk), attracting the rigours of Section 37; conspiracy under Section 29 ties the escort vehicle to the consignment.
Defence\'s position
The excess over the threshold is barely 11 kg; nothing was recovered from the petitioner\'s own vehicle; he has no antecedents; custody has run for months and trial is distant.
What the Court held
The Court granted bail without examining the merits, observing that it was "considering the fact that the narcotic contraband recovered in this case is marginally above the commercial quantity, there is no criminal antecedent against the petitioner, the petitioner is in custody since 04.04.2026 and conclusion of trial of the case will take significant long time." Release was ordered on a personal bond of Rs 1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs 50,000 each, conditioned on appearance at every hearing.
Second bail applications are not barred; they are assessed against changed circumstances. Here, the completed investigation, the custody period and the trial timeline together supplied the change that the first application lacked.
Where the margins matter in NDPS practice
| Factor | Why it moves the needle |
|---|---|
| Extent of excess over threshold | A recovery just past the commercial line invites closer scrutiny of the Section 37 bar than one many multiples above it, especially at the bail stage where guilt is untested. |
| Situs of recovery | Recovery from a different vehicle or from co-accused weakens the direct possession case against the applicant and shifts the case to conspiracy inferences. |
| Antecedents | A clean record supports the "not likely to offend while on bail" limb of Section 37. |
| Custody and trial horizon | Prolonged incarceration with a distant trial engages Article 21 concerns that the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognised even in special-statute cases. |
The takeaway
NDPS defence work at the bail stage is an exercise in precise arithmetic and role analysis: weigh the recovery against the statutory thresholds, separate what was found where and with whom, and build the custody-and-delay record diligently across applications. The prosecution\'s strength lies in the statutory presumptions at trial; the defence\'s opportunity lies in the margins — of quantity, of role, and of time. Tejmal Singh shows all three margins operating together.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What makes commercial quantity cases special under the NDPS Act?
Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes twin conditions for bail in offences involving commercial quantity: the public prosecutor must be heard, and the court must have reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and will not offend while on bail. These conditions make bail exceptional in commercial quantity cases — which is why the classification of the quantity is fought so hard.
Why did bail succeed despite the quantity being commercial?
The Court relied on a cluster of circumstances: the recovered quantity of 61.15 kg exceeded the 50 kg commercial threshold for poppy husk only marginally; the contraband was not recovered from the petitioner's own vehicle — he was alleged to be escorting the carrying vehicle; he had no criminal antecedents; he had been in custody since 4 April 2026; and the trial would take a long time to conclude.
Does a "marginal excess" argument have recognised standing?
Courts have repeatedly treated the extent to which a recovery exceeds the commercial threshold as relevant to the strength of the Section 37 bar, particularly where the accused's role is peripheral — escorting, facilitating, or travelling in a different vehicle — and where custody has been substantial. Each case remains fact-specific; the marginal character of the excess is a factor, not a rule of release.
What conditions were imposed here?
Release on a personal bond of Rs 1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs 50,000 each, conditioned on appearance at all trial dates. The order was passed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, preserving the trial court's freedom at final adjudication.