Criminal Antecedents and Habitual Offending Negate Presumption of Innocence for Bail in Intermediate Quantity NDPS Cases.

The petitioner, Shakeela Begum, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following the rejection of her earlier plea by the trial court.

The prosecution case began when one Babar Ahmed Malik was arrested with 10 grams of heroin.

Based on his disclosure, a search of the petitioner’s residence resulted in the recovery of 06 grams of heroin (intermediate quantity).

The petitioner was subsequently arrested under Sections 8, 21, 22, and 29 of the NDPS Act.

Investigations revealed Call Detail Records (CDRs) showing contact with co-accused, financial transactions suggestive of trafficking, and a history of three prior FIRs registered under the NDPS Act between 2010 and 2018.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under the general principles of bail given that the recovery fell into the "intermediate quantity" category.

2. Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and the evidence of conspiracy (Section 29 NDPS Act) barred the grant of bail despite the non-commercial quantity recovered.

Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, which imposes stringent conditions for bail, including a requirement that the court be satisfied the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit further offences.

Section 29 of the NDPS Act regarding conspiracy.

Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020) regarding the inadmissibility of Section 67 statements as substantive evidence.

Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022), which held that past criminal history is a vital factor in bail.

Dharmendra Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2026), which established that habitual offenders may be denied bail even in intermediate quantity cases.

The court observed that the recovery of contraband from the petitioner's residence, combined with CDRs and financial transaction data, provided independent corroboration of a larger conspiracy under Section 29.

While the 06 grams of heroin was an "intermediate quantity," the court held that this could not be viewed in isolation from the recovery made from the co-accused or the petitioner’s status as a "history sheeter" with three previous NDPS FIRs.

The court reasoned that in light of the petitioner being a habitual offender, she failed to satisfy the court that she would not commit further offences if released.

The court emphasized that the alarming rise in drug trafficking necessitates a cautious approach backstopped by the principles of public safety.

The Court answered the issues in the negative and dismissed the bail application.