Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in commercial-quantity NDPS cases without satisfying Section 37’s twin conditions.

The applicant, Ikram @ Kala, sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 181 of 2026, registered under Sections 8/21/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Jhinjhina, District Shamli.

The prosecution alleged that 290 grams of heroin, a commercial quantity, was recovered from co-accused Rashid on 29 April 2026.

Rashid allegedly stated that he had purchased the contraband from the applicant and communicated with him through WhatsApp calls.

The applicant was not arrested at the spot, and his alleged involvement was based principally on the statement of the co-accused.

The prosecution opposed anticipatory bail, contending that the applicant’s custodial interrogation was necessary for recovery of his mobile phone, collection of call-detail records, investigation of his financial transactions, and uncovering the supply chain.

The alleged contraband was confirmed as heroin by the forensic report dated 12 June 2026.

Whether anticipatory bail could be granted under Section 482 BNSS where the alleged offence involved commercial quantity of heroin and was therefore subject to the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Whether the applicant could claim the benefit of anticipatory bail on the ground that no contraband was recovered from his physical possession and that his implication was based on the statement of a co-accused.

Whether the facts disclosed reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant was not guilty and that he was unlikely to commit an offence while on bail, as required by Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.

Whether custodial interrogation of the applicant was necessary for investigating the alleged narcotics supply chain.

The Court applied Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, which imposes mandatory restrictions on bail—including anticipatory bail—in offences involving commercial quantity: the Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose bail, and, where bail is opposed, the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

“Reasonable grounds” require more than prima facie grounds and mean substantial probable causes supporting a belief that the accused is not guilty.

The Court relied on State of M.P. v. Kajad, Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari, State of Kerala v. Rajesh, Union of India v. Rattan Mallik @ Habul, NCB v. Mohit Aggarwal, NCB v. Kashif, State by Inspector of Police v. B. Ramu, and Union of India v. Md. Nawaz Khan, among others, for the principles that Section 37 is mandatory, that liberal bail considerations are inappropriate in commercial-quantity NDPS cases, and that absence of physical recovery from the accused does not by itself satisfy Section 37.

The Court also relied on Dinesh Chander v. State of Haryana to emphasise that alleged supply, telephonic communication, and financial transactions may justify refusal of anticipatory bail in a commercial-quantity case.

The alleged recovery of 290 grams of heroin was undisputedly within the commercial-quantity category, thereby attracting the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Although the applicant was not found in physical possession of the contraband, the prosecution material indicated that co-accused Rashid had attributed the purchase of the heroin to the applicant and had communicated with him through WhatsApp calls.

Applying Md. Nawaz Khan and Rattan Mallik, the Court held that absence of recovery from the applicant’s person was insufficient to establish the reasonable grounds required under Section 37.

The Court further found that the material collected during investigation disclosed prima facie involvement and that it could not record satisfaction that the applicant was not guilty or unlikely to commit an offence if released.

The Court also accepted the prosecution’s submission that custodial interrogation was required to recover the applicant’s mobile phone, obtain call-detail records, examine his financial means, and investigate the broader narcotics supply chain.

The authorities cited by the applicant were distinguished because several did not consider Section 37, while others involved quantities below the commercial threshold or concerned regular bail/trial issues.

Given the commercial quantity involved, the prima facie material indicating his role in supplying the contraband, and the need for custodial interrogation, no case was made out for anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS.

The anticipatory bail application was accordingly dismissed.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the anticipatory-bail application and would not influence the trial court while deciding regular bail or the merits of the case.