Narendra Dharmbeer vs. State Of Rajasthan
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Narendra Dharmbeer, sought bail in connection with FIR No. 184/2025, registered for offences under the NDPS Act and BNS. The petitioner, a proprietor of Medblue Health Care, held a valid license under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act from May 24, 2022, to May 23, 2027. He allegedly dispatched a parcel containing contraband from Gujarat. The prosecution contended that the recipient's license had expired on December 31, 2023. The charge-sheet, including the petitioner's and recipient's licenses, had been filed. The petitioner claimed to be a bona fide businessman with no criminal antecedents, and that the contraband was duly billed and paid for. He had been in custody since April 6, 2026.
Held
The Court allowed the bail application. It found that the petitioner's contentions were supported by documentary evidence, including a valid license held by the petitioner and GST bills for the alleged contraband, with corresponding payments received. The Court noted that co-accused, Khemraj @ Nirmal and Vinod @ Sabir, against whom allegations under Sections 8 and 29 of the NDPS Act were also made, had already been enlarged on bail. The Court further observed that the petitioner had no criminal antecedents and that the trial was likely to take a considerable time to conclude. It concluded that substantial grounds existed to question the prosecution case and that keeping the petitioner in detention would serve no fruitful purpose. The Court found that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were satisfied. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties, subject to his appearance in court until the trial's completion.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner, as a licensed distributor, can be held liable under Sections 8/21 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act, given that the alleged contraband was billed and paid for, and the recipient's license was purportedly expired. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he was a license holder and had dispatched the parcel in good faith. He contended that the allegations, at most, would attract Sections 8 and 29 of the NDPS Act. He highlighted that he had no criminal antecedents, no recovery was made from his possession, and the transaction was duly billed and paid. He also pointed out that co-accused, facing similar charges, had been granted bail. The conclusion of the trial was likely to take considerable time. Respondent's Arguments: The State vehemently opposed the bail application.
Sections Cited
Section 8, Section 21, Section 29, Section 37, Section 483, Section 318, Section 338, Section 336, Section 340
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
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
Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.