NARENDRA DHARMBEER v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Bench: BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Rajasthan judgment dated 2026-08-03. NARENDRA DHARMBEER v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[2026:RJ-JP:36006] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5721/2026 CNR: RJHC010403072026 | URN: CRLMB / 12805U / 2026 Narendra Dharmbeer S/o Shri Dharmbeer, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of C-1, 111 Kalpatru Park Millennium Jundel, Near Divine International School, Thana Adalaj, District Gandhinagar, Gujrat. Presently Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. JVS Deora For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 03/08/2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material available on record. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 184/2025 of Police Station Hiranmagri, District Udaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21 and 8/29 of NDPS Act and under Sections 318(4), 338(2), 336(3) and 340(2) of BNS.
He has preferred this bail application under Section 483 of BNSS. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in the present case, the allegations against the petitioner are that he had dispatched the parcel containing the alleged contraband from Gujarat. It is submitted that the petitioner is the licence holder under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and his licence, issued in the name of Medblue Health Care, of which he is the proprietor, was valid for the period from 24. 05. 2022 to 23. 05. 2027. It is [2026:RJ-JP:36006] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-5721/2026] submitted that, being the licence holder, the petitioner had dispatched the same to the recipient. However, it is alleged that the licence of the purchaser stood expired on 31. 12. 2023, and on account of the alleged violation, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case.
He further submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed after a thorough investigation, and the same includes the licence of the petitioner as well as the licence of the recipient, namely Radhakishan Medicose, of which Ramesh Patel is the proprietor, who had received the alleged contraband. It is submitted that, in such circumstances, at the highest, the allegations against the petitioner would attract the provisions of Section 8 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a licence holder and has been behind bars since 06. 04. 2026. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has absolutely no criminal antecedents and is a bona fide businessman. It is submitted that no recovery has been effected from the possession of the petitioner in the present case, and the alleged contraband had been duly billed and the payment thereof had been received.
It is also submitted that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a considerable amount of time. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. This Court has considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are supported by the documents available on record, and the licence holder possesses a valid licence. Further, [2026:RJ-JP:36006] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-5721/2026] GST bills have been produced in respect of the alleged contraband, and the corresponding payments have also been received. Further, the co-accused, against whom allegations under Sections 8 and 29 of the NDPS Act were also levelled, and to whom the alleged contraband was purportedly to be sold, namely, Khemraj @ Nirmal and Vinod @ Sabir, have already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 13. 10. 2025 and 11. 11. 2025, respectively.
Further, there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. In the opinion of this Court, substantial grounds exist in favour of the petitioner to question the prosecution case and, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him in continued detention till conclusion of the trial. This Court further finds that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act stand duly satisfied in the present case. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserve to be accepted.
Hence, keeping in view of the fact that conclusion of the trial of the case is likely to take time and the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the petitioner fleeing away from justice, in case he is enlarged on bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to grant bail to the petitioner under Section 483 of BNSS. Accordingly, this bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS is allowed and it is directed that petitioner – Narendra Dharmbeer S/o Shri Dharmbeer, shall be released on bail in [2026:RJ-JP:36006] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-5721/2026] connection with aforesaid FIR, if not wanted in any other case, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J 31/Hanuman Ram
Source: High Court of Rajasthan. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.