Absence of direct recovery and parity with co-accused warrants bail in intermediate quantity NDPS conspiracy cases.

Following a raid on 12.05.2025 at a courier godown in Delhi, 66.6g of Alprazolam and 164.9g of Zolpidem were recovered from co-accused Sanjay Kumar

Investigation traced the batch numbers of the psychotropic substances to the manufacturer, who informed the police that the medicines were sold to Chandra Pharma (the applicant’s firm) and Hanumant Pharma

The applicant, proprietor of Chandra Pharma, was arrested for allegedly supplying these NRX medicines without documentation or maintaining statutory records

The applicant contended that he was not named in the FIR, no recovery was made from him, and he held a valid pharmaceutical license

The charge-sheet has been filed, and the applicant has spent over eight months in custody

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. read with the provisions of the NDPS Act, given that the recovery was only of an intermediate quantity from a co-accused

Whether the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted when no recovery was made directly from the applicant

The Court considered Section 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, pertaining to the punishment for contravention in relation to psychotropic substances and criminal conspiracy

It noted Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantities, while distinguishing its application in cases of intermediate quantities

The Court also addressed the evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act in light of settled law (referencing *Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu*)

Additionally, it applied the principle of parity in bail jurisprudence

The Court observed that the recovery of 66.6g of Alprazolam and 164.9g of Zolpidem constitutes an "intermediate quantity," thus the strict "twin conditions" of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not technically apply in the same manner as they would for commercial quantities

The Court highlighted that the recovery was made from co-accused Sanjay, not the applicant

Crucially, investigation revealed that parcels intended for the applicant's firm were actually received in Delhi by another co-accused, Surjeet, breaking the direct link of possession against the applicant

The Court noted that while the applicant allegedly failed to maintain GST and stock registers, he did possess a valid drug license

Finally, the Court found that a similarly situated co-accused, Manu Agarwal, had already been granted bail by a coordinate bench, satisfying the rule of parity

The application was allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety, subject to conditions including surrendering his passport and appearing for all trial proceedings