Bail on parity denied in NDPS commercial quantity cases without recording Section 37 satisfaction.

The Petitioners, Sameep Ahammed and Mahendra Singh, were arrested in connection with Jeypore Sadar PS Case No. 181 of 2022 for allegedly transporting 647 Kgs of contraband Ganja—a commercial quantity—in a container.

They were charged under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

The Petitioners sought bail primarily on the grounds of parity with a co-accused who was previously released and the current absence of a Presiding Officer in the trial court.

Seven witnesses had already been examined at the time of this application.

1. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to bail on the ground of parity when the order granting bail to the co-accused failed to record satisfaction of the dual conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

2. Whether the administrative absence of a Presiding Officer in the trial court constitutes a sufficient ground for the High Court to grant bail in a matter involving a commercial quantity of contraband.

The court primarily applied Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which mandates that for offences involving commercial quantities, bail shall not be granted unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

It further relied on the precedent of *Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab* (2018) 13 SCC 813, which established that recording satisfaction of the conditions under Section 37 is a sine qua non for granting bail in such cases.

The court also exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The court reasoned that the ground of parity was inapplicable because the co-accused's bail order did not demonstrate a discussion or recording of the mandatory requirements under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Citing *Satpal Singh*, the court emphasized that any order granting bail for commercial quantities without entering the required level of satisfaction is legally unsustainable.

Regarding the absence of a Presiding Officer, the court held that this operational issue should be remedied through administrative directions—specifically by requesting the District & Sessions Judge to assign the case to a competent court—rather than by releasing the accused.

The court found that the Petitioners failed to satisfy the "not guilty" threshold required by law.

The holding established that statutory mandates under Section 37 of the NDPS Act override claims of parity if the prior order was deficient.

The court directed the District & Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore, to take immediate steps to ensure the trial proceeds by assigning the case to a competent court with necessary approval.