NEEMA RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Bench: BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Rajasthan judgment dated 2026-08-05. NEEMA RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[2026:RJ-JP:37012] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10127/2026 CNR: RJHC010748272026 | URN: CRLMB / 22212U / 2026 Neema Ram S/o Shri Aaja Ram Alias Arjun, Aged About 25 Years, Mandoli, Tehsil-Bhinmal, District-Jalore Raj. (Presently Lodged In District Jail Sirohi) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naresh Singh for Mr. Rakesh Arora For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 05/08/2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 133/2025 registered at Police Station Saroopganj, District Sirohi, for the offences punishable under Sections 8/20 and 29 of the NDPS Act. He has preferred the present bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged contraband recovered in the present case is 28. 500 kg of ganja, however, the recovered substance comprises seeds and leaves, and the recovery memo does not indicate the presence of flowering or fruiting tops. He further submits that the alleged recovery was effected from the conscious possession of Karan Kumar and Ramesh Kumar, and nothing has been recovered from the petitioner. It is contended that the only allegation against the [2026:RJ-JP:37012] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-10127/2026] petitioner is that he loaded the alleged contraband into the vehicle at the instance of Mohan Lal, who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court. Learned counsel further submits that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while considering that the recovered substance primarily comprised seeds and dry leaves, granted bail to the main accused, namely Karan Kumar, Ramesh Kumar, and Mohan Lal, vide order dated 25. 06. 2025.
It is argued that the case of the present petitioner stands on a better footing, as the allegations against him are only under Sections 8 and 29 of the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that the entire recovered substance has been collectively weighed, thereby bringing it above the commercial quantity, which is not justified in the facts of the case. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, no other case under the NDPS Act is registered against him, he has been in judicial custody since 14. 06. 2026, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The alleged contraband recovered in the present case is 28. 500 kg of ganja. However, the recovery consists of seeds and leaves, and the substance has been collectively weighed.
Further, the alleged recovery was effected from the conscious possession of Karan Kumar and Ramesh Kumar, and nothing has been [2026:RJ-JP:37012] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-10127/2026] recovered from the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner is confined to loading the alleged contraband into the vehicle at the instance of Mohan Lal, who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while considering that the recovered substance primarily comprised seeds and dry leaves, granted bail to the main accused, namely Karan Kumar, Ramesh Kumar, and Mohan Lal in SB. CRM. BA No. 6561/2025 vide order dated 25. 06. 2025. Prima facie, the case of the present petitioner stands on a better footing, as the allegations against him are only under Sections 8 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents, no other case under the NDPS Act is registered against him, and he has remained in custody since 14. 06. 2026.
Having regard to the material presently available on record, the absence of recovery from the conscious possession of the petitioner, the nature of the evidence collected during investigation, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that reasonable grounds exist for believing that the petitioner may not be guilty of the alleged offence. There is also nothing on record to indicate that, if released on bail, he is likely to commit any offence while on bail. Consequently, for the limited purpose of deciding the present application, the rigours contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act stand satisfied. Hence, keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case; the fact that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time; but without expressing any opinion on the [2026:RJ-JP:37012] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-10127/2026] merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail under Section 483 of the BNSS.
Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner, Neema Ram S/o Shri Aaja Ram @ Arjun, shall be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR, if not wanted in any other case, provided that he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) along with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his appearance before the said Court on each and every date of hearing and as and when called upon to do so, till the conclusion of the trial. It is, however, made clear that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The learned trial Court shall decide the matter independently, uninfluenced by any observations contained in this order.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J 57/Hanuman
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.