Bar Council of India Notice

Disclaimer & Confirmation

As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, an advocate is not permitted to solicit work or advertise. By clicking “I Agree” below, you acknowledge and confirm that:

you are seeking information about Advocate Manish Jha of your own accord and for your own information and use; there has been no advertisement, personal communication, solicitation, invitation or inducement of any kind whatsoever from Advocate Manish Jha or the chamber to solicit any work through this website; the information made available here is provided only on your specific request; and no information on this website is to be construed as legal advice, nor does its use create any advocate-client relationship.

⚖  E-397, 4th Floor, Tagore Garden Extension, New Delhi – 110027 Mon–Sat  ·  +91 98738 50301  ·  legal@advocatemanishjha.com
Advocate Manish Jha Criminal · Civil · Family Law — New Delhi ☎  Consult the Chamber
Home › Rajasthan High Court — NDPS Bail
Rajasthan High Court · 26 September 2026

Intermediate Quantity, Filed Charge-Sheet, Co-Accused on Bail: A Routine NDPS Grant Worth Reading

In Mukesh v. State of Rajasthan, the Jodhpur Bench granted regular bail under Section 483 BNSS where the recovered heroin fell below the commercial threshold, investigation was complete, trial would take considerable time, and a similarly placed co-accused had already been released.

Not every instructive bail order comes from a headline case. In S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12723/2026, decided on 26 September 2026, Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu of the Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a 30-year-old accused from whom 54.88 grams of heroin had been recovered — a quantity above “small” but below “commercial” under the NDPS Act. The order illustrates, cleanly, the three factors that decide most intermediate-quantity NDPS bail applications: quantity classification, the stage of investigation, and parity.

The case in brief

Mukesh was arrested in FIR No. 88/2026, Police Station Merta Road, District Nagaur, for offences under Sections 8 and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, after police claimed recovery of 54.88 grams of heroin. By the time the bail application was heard, the charge-sheet had been filed — investigation was over, and nothing remained to be recovered from or through the accused. A co-accused had already been admitted to bail by the same court.

How the court approached it

Classify the quantity. The recovery sat below the commercial threshold for heroin, so the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act did not apply and the application fell to be decided on ordinary bail principles.
Check the stage. With the charge-sheet filed, continued custody served little investigative purpose, and the court noted the trial would take considerable time to conclude.
Apply parity. The co-accused’s release from the same court supplied a comparator the State could not meaningfully distinguish.

Bail followed on a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties of ₹50,000 each and a condition of regular appearance at trial.

The quantity bands, at a glance

BandHeroin (illustrative)Bail consequence
Small quantityUp to 5 gOffence attracts lighter punishment; bail on ordinary principles, often readily granted
Intermediate quantityAbove 5 g and below 250 gNo Section 37 embargo; custody period, stage of case, antecedents and parity decide
Commercial quantity250 g or moreSection 37 twin conditions apply; bail exceptional, subject to constitutional delay jurisprudence

The notified small and commercial quantities differ for each substance. Classification is fixed by the seizure’s net contraband content as per the FSL report, and disputes about weighing, sampling and homogeneity are recurring battlegrounds in NDPS trials.

Why routine orders like this matter in Delhi practice

Delhi’s special NDPS courts see a steady stream of intermediate-quantity arrests — street-level recoveries that fall between the notified thresholds. The Rajasthan order mirrors the approach Delhi courts take in comparable cases: once the charge-sheet is filed and the quantity is non-commercial, prolonged pre-trial custody requires justification, and an unexplained disparity with a released co-accused rarely survives scrutiny. For the defence, three preparation points follow: obtain the FSL report and verify the band; place the custody certificate and trial-stage status before the court; and document the co-accused’s bail order with a role comparison. For the prosecution, opposition must be built on antecedents, conduct or a genuine role distinction — not on the gravity of the statute alone.

Conditions matter after release: appearance on every date, no contact with witnesses, and no fresh offence. NDPS bail once granted is vulnerable to cancellation on breach, and courts treat drug-matter violations with particular strictness.

This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. NDPS matters turn on the seizure record, FSL findings and procedural compliance in each case.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why does quantity matter so much in NDPS bail?

Because Section 37 NDPS Act imposes twin conditions — a prima facie finding of innocence and of unlikelihood of reoffending — only for offences involving commercial quantity and certain specified offences. Below commercial quantity, bail is governed by ordinary principles under Section 483 BNSS (Section 439 CrPC), where custody, trial delay and antecedents dominate.

What quantity was involved here and why was it “intermediate”?

The recovery was 54.88 grams of heroin. For heroin, small quantity is 5 grams and commercial quantity is 250 grams under the notified table, so the recovery fell in the intermediate band — attracting Sections 8/21 NDPS Act but not the Section 37 embargo.

What role did parity play?

A co-accused, Rakesh, had already been granted bail by the same court. Parity is not an absolute rule, but where roles are comparable and the earlier order holds the field, courts lean towards even-handed treatment.

What conditions were imposed?

A personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties of ₹50,000 each, and an undertaking to appear on all trial dates. Breach of conditions is a classic ground for cancellation of bail.

Note: This article is general information about the law and is not legal advice. It does not create an advocate-client relationship. The position stated is as at 28 September 2026 and may have changed since. Readers should verify any provision or decision referred to against the official text and seek advice on their own circumstances.