RAGUNATH RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Bench: BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Rajasthan judgment dated 2026-08-10. RAGUNATH RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[2026:RJ-JP:37974] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 479/2026 CNR: RJHC010037092026 | URN: CRLMB / 1151U / 2026 Ragunath Ram S/o Chutara Ram, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Kau Ka Kheda Kawas Ps Nagana Distrct Barmer. Raj (Lodged In Sub Jail Mavli, Udaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Sharma Mr. Chaturbhuj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 10/08/2026 This application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 439 Cr. P. C. ) has been filed by the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with F. I. R. No. 71/2021 registered at Police Station Kheroda, District Udaipur, for offences punishable under Sections 8/25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he supplied the truck from which 1011. 900 kilograms of poppy straw was recovered. It is submitted that the said truck was being driven by co-accused Ashok Kumar and that the alleged contraband was brought by co-accused Narayan Lal in his pick-up vehicle and thereafter transferred to the said truck. The petitioner has been implicated primarily on the [2026:RJ-JP:37974] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-479/2026] ground that he was the owner of the truck and had supplied the same. Learned counsel further submits that the material against the petitioner is confined to the information furnished by co-accused Ashok Kumar and Narayan Lal under Section 23(2) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and that, apart from the said material, there is no other evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence.
It is further submitted that both Ashok Kumar and Narayan Lal, at whose instance the petitioner has been implicated, have already been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 17. 04. 2026 and 19. 02. 2026, respectively. It is contended that the case of the present petitioner stands on an even better footing. Learned counsel further submits that the investigation qua the petitioner is complete and the charge-sheet has already been filed. The petitioner has remained in custody since 01. 08. 2025 and, till date, only one prosecution witness has been examined. It is also submitted that the petitioner has no antecedents under the NDPS Act and that the two other cases pending against him are under the Indian Penal Code. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.
However, he is not in a position to dispute that the petitioner has been charged for the offence punishable under Section 8/25 of the NDPS Act, no contraband was recovered from his conscious possession and the co-accused Ashok Kumar and Narayan Lal have already been enlarged on bail. [2026:RJ-JP:37974] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-479/2026] This Court has considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record. The allegation against the petitioner is essentially that he, being the owner of the truck in question, had supplied the same for transportation of the contraband. The contraband, weighing 1011. 900 kilograms of poppy straw, was recovered from the said truck, which was allegedly being driven by co-accused Ashok Kumar, whereas co-accused Narayan Lal is alleged to have brought the contraband in his pick-up vehicle and thereafter transferred the same to the truck.
At this stage, it is noticed that no contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and the material relied upon against him is stated to be the information furnished by co-accused Ashok Kumar and Narayan Lal. Both the said co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 17. 04. 2026 and 19. 02. 2026, respectively. The petitioner has remained in custody since 01. 08. 2025, the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed. Further, only one prosecution witness has been examined so far. The petitioner also does not have any antecedent under the NDPS Act.
Having regard to the material presently available on record, the absence of recovery of the contraband 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 [2026:RJ-JP:37974] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-479/2026] be guilty of the alleged offence. There is also nothing substantial on record to indicate that, if released on bail, the petitioner is likely to commit any offence while on bail. Consequently, for the limited purpose of consideration of the present bail application, the twin conditions contemplated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stand satisfied.
Hence, keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time and the absence of any material indicating that the petitioner is likely to flee from justice, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail under Section 483 of the BNSS. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS (Section 439 Cr. P. C. ) is allowed. It is ordered that accused-petitioner Ragunath Ram S/o Chutara Ram, arrested in connection with F. I. R. No. 71/2021 registered at Police Station Kheroda, District Udaipur, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two sureties in the sum of Rs.
50,000/-each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his appearance before the said Court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till conclusion of the trial. [2026:RJ-JP:37974] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-479/2026] It is, however, made clear that the observations made hereinabove are confined only to the adjudication of 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 observation made in this order. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J 5/Mayank Chouhan
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.