Bail denied under Section 37 NDPS Act where commercial-quantity recovery lacks reasonable grounds of innocence.

The applicant sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime/FIR No. 187/2025 registered at Police Station Semariya, District Sidhi, for offences under Sections 8, 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act, Section 5/13 of the Madhya Pradesh Drug Control Act, and Section 238(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

He had been in custody since 20 October 2025.

According to the prosecution, the applicant was apprehended after a Scorpio vehicle carrying prohibited cough syrup met with an accident.

Co-accused Vinay Dwivedi allegedly fled.

On the applicant’s disclosure, five sacks containing 1,180 bottles of Onrex cough syrup were recovered from bushes approximately 100 metres from the accident site.

The applicant contended that he was merely the vehicle’s driver, that no contraband was recovered from his personal possession or search, and that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to him.

The State opposed bail, asserting that the recovery was made at the applicant’s instance and established his conscious possession.

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail despite the alleged recovery of 1,180 bottles of codeine-phosphate cough syrup and the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Whether Section 50 of the NDPS Act was attracted where the alleged recovery was not made from the applicant’s personal search.

Whether the applicant’s arrest was rendered illegal because the grounds of arrest were allegedly not communicated to him, in light of Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra.

The Court applied Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for bail in cases involving offences concerning commercial quantities, requiring reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

Section 50 of the NDPS Act applies to personal searches of an accused and is not attracted to recoveries made from premises, vehicles, bags, bushes or other locations unconnected with the accused’s personal search.

The Court also considered Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2026) 1 SCC 500, concerning communication of the grounds of arrest; however, the Supreme Court had directed that the procedure laid down would operate prospectively from the date of judgment, 6 November 2025.

The Court found that the alleged recovery of 1,180 bottles of Onrex cough syrup containing codeine phosphate, recovered at the applicant’s instance, involved a quantity stated to be substantially above the prescribed commercial quantity.

Consequently, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied.

At the bail stage, the Court was not satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant was not guilty or that he was unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

The applicant’s reliance on Section 50 failed because the contraband was not recovered during his personal search.

His challenge to the arrest also did not assist him because the arrest occurred on 20 October 2025, before the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah, whose directions were expressly prospective.

It further held that Section 50 was inapplicable and that the alleged non-communication of the grounds of arrest did not, at that stage, constitute a ground for release because the arrest preceded the prospective operation of Mihir Rajesh Shah.

The first bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS was accordingly dismissed.