Delhi HC Denies Bail In 2.07-Kg Charas Case, Finding No Total Section 52A Breach To Displace NDPS Section 37

The applicant sought regular bail in FIR No. 298/2025, registered under Sections 20/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), after 2.070 kg of charas was allegedly recovered from his car.

He argued that police had an opportunity to plant the contraband while he was detained in a police vehicle between 11:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., and that Section 52A(2) had not been complied with.

The State opposed bail, submitting that there was no evidence of such detention and that an inventory had been prepared and the Magistrate had examined the record when samples were drawn.

The application was considered against the statutory bar applicable to commercial-quantity cases.

Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent, cumulative conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantities: the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

Section 52A concerns the preparation and certification of an inventory and the sampling and disposal process for seized narcotic substances; the court treated the Magistrate’s order recording the sampling exercise as showing that this was not a case of total non-compliance.

Yashmin v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 9572, was distinguished because it did not concern bail in a commercial-quantity case engaging Section 37.

Abdul Rajik v. State of M.P., 2026 INSC 1001, was distinguished as an appeal following trial; the court noted its observation that minor lapses or procedural delays do not automatically result in acquittal, while total non-compliance with Section 52A is relevant.

Charas has a commercial-quantity threshold of 1 kg, and the alleged recovery of 2.070 kg therefore engaged Section 37’s stringent bail conditions.

The court rejected the planting allegation because, contrary to counsel’s assertion, the FIR did not state that the applicant had been kept away from his car or detained in a police vehicle in a manner creating an opportunity to plant the contraband.

It also rejected the Section 52A argument because the record included the Magistrate’s detailed order of 3 November 2025 concerning the sampling exercise; accordingly, the court found no total non-compliance.

It further held that procedural irregularities, without a basis to disregard the statutory requirements, did not justify setting aside Section 37’s twin conditions.

It directed that a copy of the order be sent immediately to the concerned Jail Superintendent to inform the applicant.