Criminal antecedents and commercial quantity recovery preclude bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The petitioner sought regular bail in FIR No. 500/2022 under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act

Acting on secret information and subsequent interrogations of co-accused Shanno and Seema, the police raided the petitioner’s premises.

After cutting open the door with an iron grill cutter, the police allegedly recovered 300 grams of heroin from under the petitioner’s bed

The petitioner is reportedly involved in six other criminal cases, including one prior case under the NDPS Act

A previous bail application was withdrawn on July 30, 2025, with liberty to file afresh if the trial did not conclude within six months

The petitioner argued for bail on grounds of parity with co-accused Seema, lack of videography during the raid, and trial delay

1. Whether the petitioner satisfied the twin conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act in light of the recovery of a commercial quantity of contraband

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Seema

3. Whether the alleged delay in trial warrants the dilution of the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act

Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which mandates twin conditions for bail: (i) the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty, and (ii) that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail

Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act regarding commercial quantities

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, balancing individual liberty against the socio-economic impact of drug trafficking and judicial workload

The court observed that 300 grams of heroin constitutes a commercial quantity, thereby invoking the strict bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The court held that the petitioner failed to satisfy the first condition as no evidence was presented to create reasonable doubt regarding the recovery from his possession

Regarding the second condition, the petitioner’s involvement in six other cases, including one NDPS matter, led the court to conclude that the risk of recidivism could not be ruled out

The plea of parity was rejected because the co-accused Seema was a woman with no adverse criminal antecedents, whereas the petitioner had a significant criminal history

Addressing the argument of delay, the court noted that seven out of twenty-one witnesses had been examined, and the remaining three witnesses relevant to the petitioner would be examined within three months; thus, the delay was not sufficient to override the statutory rigors, especially considering the systemic workload on the judiciary

the court directed the prosecution to ensure that the three remaining witnesses pertaining to the allegations against the petitioner are examined within three months, subject to any adjournments sought by the accused