01Facts
Narender sought regular bail under Sections 483 and 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in FIR No. 590/2025, registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).
p. 1The prosecution alleged that 712 grams of heroin was recovered from his residence and charged him under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
pp. 1–4His earlier bail application had been dismissed, and the case was pending at the stage of framing of charges.
pp. 1–4Narender relied, among other things, on the FSL report, which found that only 54 grams of the seized substance contained diacetylmorphine; the State opposed bail, disputing the significance of the report and pointing to the quantity allegedly recovered.
pp. 5–7The investigation was complete, 23 prosecution witnesses were cited, and none had been examined.
p. 1002Issues
i.Whether the FSL findings provided reasonable grounds to treat the recoverable diacetylmorphine as an intermediate quantity, such that the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply.
pp. 7–10ii.Whether, in light of the FSL findings, the petitioner’s custody, and the anticipated duration of trial, regular bail should be granted subject to conditions.
pp. 10–1203Law Applied
Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes twin conditions on bail for offences within its scope: the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and that the accused is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.
pp. 7–9“Reasonable grounds” require more than a prima facie view, though the bail court need not make a final finding on guilt [pp. 7–9, citing Aditya Kumar v. Union of India Through Narcotic Control Bureau, Lucknow, 2022 SCC OnLine All 625].
pp. 7–9The Court also relied on Dharmender v. State, BAIL APPLN. 3576/2020 (Delhi High Court, order dated 23 December 2020), concerning the significance of an FSL report that does not identify diacetylmorphine in the tested substance.
pp. 9–10The application was brought under Sections 483 and 528 of the BNSS.
p. 1Provisions in the judgment · 14 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 105Section 483Section 528
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 2Section 21Section 25Section 29Section 37
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 34Section 341Section 354Section 506Section 509
04Reasoning
The Court considered that, although 712 grams of substance had been seized, the FSL report identified diacetylmorphine in only 54 grams; the other identified constituents were not classified as heroin under the NDPS Act.
pp. 7–10It therefore treated the relevant recovery as an intermediate quantity and held that Section 37’s restrictions were not applicable.
pp. 7–10The Court also noted that the investigation was complete, charges had not yet been framed, no prosecution witnesses had been examined, and the petitioner had undergone nearly 12 months in custody.
p. 10It concluded that the State’s concerns about witness influence or further offending could be addressed through bail conditions.
pp. 10–1105Holding
The Court allowed the application and granted Narender regular bail in FIR No. 590/2025, subject to a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the same amount and conditions including attendance at hearings, notification of any address change, maintaining an operational mobile number, non-contact with prosecution witnesses, non-tampering with evidence, and not committing any offence while proceedings are pending.
pp. 11–12The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the trial.
p. 12Original Court PDF
NarendervsThe State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
