Delhi HC grants bail after arrest grounds listed heroin quantity before alleged recovery

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an FIR alleging offences under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The prosecution alleged that 268 grams of heroin—a commercial quantity—was recovered from a wooden almirah at the applicant’s residence after his arrest on 19 November 2024.

The applicant contended that the written grounds of arrest, prepared and signed before the house search, already referred to the recovery of precisely 268 grams of heroin.

His second bail application had been rejected by the Special Judge, who considered the discrepancy inconsequential in light of video recording of the recovery and held that it could be tested at trial.

The applicant had no disclosed prior criminal involvement, surrendered after two periods of interim bail, and had spent almost two years in custody; the prosecution case had not progressed beyond the framing of charges.

1. Whether the unexplained chronology—where the grounds of arrest recorded the precise quantity of heroin before the alleged search and recovery—provided reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant was not guilty for purposes of the first limb of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.

2. Whether the circumstances, including the absence of disclosed criminal antecedents, compliance during interim bail, and prolonged custody amid limited trial progress, supported the second limb of Section 37(1)(b)(ii)—that the applicant was unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act requires the court, for offences involving commercial quantity, to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and that the accused is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

In Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, (2022) 18 SCC 374, the Supreme Court explained that “reasonable grounds” means credible and plausible grounds supporting that belief; at the bail stage, the court need not record a finding of innocence or weigh the evidence as at trial.

The Court also relied on Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 918, and Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109, for the relevance of a protracted trial and resultant prolonged incarceration in NDPS bail considerations.

The grounds of arrest, prepared before the alleged house search, recorded the same precise quantity later said to have been recovered. The Court considered this unexplained chronology a prima facie circumstance bearing on the credibility of the alleged recovery and sufficient, at the limited bail stage, to satisfy the first limb of Section 37; it made no final finding on the recovery’s genuineness.

For the second limb, the Court relied on the absence of disclosed previous criminal involvement and the applicant’s surrender after each interim-bail period, with no reported misconduct.

It also considered his prolonged custody alongside the lack of meaningful progress in the trial, while noting that custody alone was not decisive.

It granted regular bail on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one local surety for the like amount, subject to conditions including travel restrictions, disclosure of address and mobile number, cooperation with the investigating officer, non-interference with witnesses or evidence, regular court attendance, and periodic reporting to the police.

The Court requested the Trial Court to expedite the proceedings and clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application.