Criminal Antecedents and Commercial Quantity of Contraband Preclude Satisfaction of Section 37 NDPS Act Conditions for Bail

The petitioner, Buna Kanhar, filed an application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

He was accused of offenses under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act following the alleged transportation of 175 kgs of contraband Ganja in a Scorpio vehicle (Regd. No. OD-07Z-0999)

The petitioner argued that he was not apprehended at the spot, no recovery was made from him, and he was falsely implicated based on his involvement in another pending case

The State opposed the bail, highlighting that the petitioner was involved in two separate cases involving commercial quantities of Ganja

1. Whether the petitioner satisfied the twin conditions for grant of bail involving commercial quantities of narcotics under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

2. Whether the petitioner's involvement in a prior similar offense and his status as an "absconder" in the charge sheet disentitle him to bail.

The court primarily applied Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, which mandates that for offenses involving commercial quantities, bail can only be granted if the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail

The court also relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu (2023) SCC OnLine SC 346, which cautions against granting bail to those identified as organizers or "kingpins" in illicit trades, even when not caught at the spot

Procedurally, the application was moved under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023

The court reasoned that since the petitioner was allegedly involved in another similar case (Phulbani Sadar P.S. Case No. 07 of 2025) involving commercial quantities of Ganja, he failed to satisfy the second limb of Section 37—that he is "unlikely to commit any offense" while on bail

Applying the logic from Ajay Kumar Singh, the court noted that direct physical apprehension or recovery from the person is not a prerequisite for denial of bail if the investigation points toward involvement in an illicit trade network

Furthermore, the court observed that the petitioner was declared an "absconder" in the charge sheet and emphasized that the trial was at a premature stage where witnesses had not yet been examined

It held that the petitioner did not meet the rigorous statutory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act

Consequently, the BLAPL was disposed of, and the court directed the transmission of the order to the lower court for reference