Absence of recovery and commercial quantity permits bail for suspected supplier despite custodial confessions and petty transcripts.

The petitioner sought regular bail regarding FIR No. 175/2026 registered at PS Sarojini Nagar for offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(B)/29 of the NDPS Act.

On April 28, 2026, police apprehended a co-accused, Sanjay, with 1.228 kg of ganja.

In a custodial statement, Sanjay named the petitioner as a supplier.

Consequently, the petitioner was arrested; the police cited online credit transactions (ranging from Rs. 100 to Rs. 300) on her phone and two audio recordings as evidence of her involvement.

No physical recovery was made from the petitioner.

The petitioner contended she was falsely implicated and highlighted her advanced stage of pregnancy.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail considering the lack of recovery and the nature of the evidence presented.

2. Whether the "twin conditions" for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are applicable to the present case.

The court applied Section 37 of the NDPS Act, noting that its restrictive bail conditions apply only to commercial quantities of contraband.

Interpretation of Section 20(b)(ii)(B) (intermediate quantity) and Section 29 (abetment/conspiracy) of the NDPS Act.

The court relied on the principle that custodial statements of co-accused require corroboration and that circumstantial evidence like financial transactions must logically link to the alleged crime.

The court observed that since 1.228 kg of ganja is not a "commercial quantity" (which is 20 kg), the strict "twin conditions" of Section 37 NDPS Act do not apply.

The court found the prosecution's reliance on petty online transactions (Rs. 100 to Rs. 300) logically inconsistent with professional drug trafficking, questioning why a supplier would use traceable online systems for such small amounts rather than lump-sum cash.

Regarding the audio recordings, the court noted that even if the voice belongs to the petitioner, the use of "filthy language" does not imply complicity in drug dealing, especially when the recordings lack explicit references to contraband.

The court took judicial notice of the petitioner’s advanced stage of pregnancy as a humanitarian ground for release.

It held that there was no justification to deprive the petitioner of her liberty given the lack of recovery and the weak circumstantial evidence.

The petitioner was directed to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety, with a condition to join the investigation as directed.