Bail was denied under Section 37 NDPS Act after finding the seized contraband exceeded commercial quantity.

On 6 July 2026, during patrolling, the Excise Flying Squad allegedly received secret information and apprehended the applicant, Sahil Tirkey.

Ten ampoules of Rexogesic Buprenorphine Injection IP, each containing 2 ml and totalling 20 ml, were allegedly seized from his possession. A further 39 ampoules, totalling 78 ml, were seized from co-accused Nitish Gupta

Crime No. 43/2026 was registered under Section 22(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

The applicant, in custody since 7 July 2026, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), alleging false implication, fabricated seizure proceedings, and non-compliance with mandatory NDPS provisions.

No one appeared for the applicant despite repeated calls; the Court proceeded with the assistance of the State counsel.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

It considered Section 22(C) of the NDPS Act, relating to offences involving psychotropic substances in commercial quantity, and Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for bail where the offence involves commercial quantity.

Under Section 37, bail may be granted only where the Court has reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

The Court also considered the nature and gravity of the alleged offence and the quantity of contraband seized.

The Court treated the seizure of 10 ampoules, totalling 20 ml, from the applicant, together with the seizure of 39 ampoules, totalling 78 ml, from the co-accused, as involving contraband “much above” the commercial quantity.

On that basis, the Court held that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied.

The prosecution case and the material in the case diary were considered sufficient, at the bail stage, to establish the applicant’s prima facie involvement.

The Court found no basis to conclude that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant was not guilty or that he would not commit an offence while on bail.

Although the applicant had remained in custody since 7 July 2026, that circumstance did not outweigh the statutory restrictions and the gravity of the alleged commercial-quantity offence.

The trial court was directed to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously, and the Registry was directed to provide a certified copy of the order to the trial court for necessary compliance.