Bail under NDPS Act for commercial quantities requires mandatory satisfaction of Section 37 conditions regardless of parity.

The petitioners were arrested in connection with Jeypore Sadar PS Case No. 181 of 2022 for allegedly transporting 647 Kgs of contraband Ganja in a container.

This quantity is classified as "commercial" under the NDPS Act.

The petitioners sought bail primarily on the grounds of parity with co-accused persons who were already granted bail, and the current absence of a Presiding Officer in the trial court.

Seven witnesses had already been examined in the trial.

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail on the ground of parity and administrative delays in the trial court despite the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act

2. Whether the Court can grant bail for commercial quantities of contraband without recording a satisfaction of the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act

The court primarily applied Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which mandates that for offences involving commercial quantities, bail can only be granted if the court is satisfied 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 under Section 37 is a *sine qua non* for granting bail in such cases, and parity cannot be claimed if the previous bail order ignored these statutory requirements.

Reference was also made to Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) under which the application was filed.

The Court observed that 647 Kgs of Ganja is well above the commercial quantity, triggering the restrictive provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The Court rejected the argument of parity, noting that the order granting bail to the co-accused did not demonstrate any discussion or satisfaction of the mandatory conditions under Section 37; therefore, following *Satpal Singh*, such an order cannot serve as a valid precedent for parity.

Regarding the absence of a Presiding Officer, the Court reasoned that administrative remedies exist—such as requesting the District & Sessions Judge to assign the case to another competent court—which are more appropriate than granting bail for a serious offence where trial is already underway.

The Court held that the petitioners failed to satisfy the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

However, to address the delay, the Court directed the District & Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore, to take steps to ensure the continuation of the trial by assigning the case to himself or another competent court.