Delhi HC Grants Bail to Man in Joint Heroin Case After Over 2 Years in Custody, Citing Wife’s Bail and Trial Delay

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an NDPS case registered under Sections 21/25/29 of the NDPS Act.

The prosecution alleged that 260 grams of heroin was recovered from a polythene bag hidden in shoes at the petitioner’s residence, which he shared with co-accused Bina, his wife.

The petitioner and Bina were charged under Sections 21(c)/25/29; the trial was at the prosecution-evidence stage, and the petitioner had been in custody for more than two years.

The trial court refused bail, citing the commercial quantity, Section 37, and the petitioner’s 14 criminal cases, including four NDPS cases.

Bina, against whom the recovery was alleged to be joint and whose case was treated as identical for the charge-framing purposes, had been granted bail by the High Court.

Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act imposes twin conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantity, requiring the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

Under *Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi*, the court’s assessment is prima facie and based on a broad, reasonable appraisal of the material; prolonged incarceration and trial delay may also engage Article 21 and support bail notwithstanding Section 37.

*Sagar v. State of U.P.* and *Harbhajan Singh v. State* establish that parity is relevant but not determinative: it depends on whether the accused’s position and role are materially similar.

*Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P.* holds that pending criminal cases, by themselves, do not automatically justify refusal of bail.

The Court also considered decisions addressing marginally above-threshold recoveries and prolonged custody, including *Vinay Sharma*, *Sunny*, *Man Mandal* and *Rabi Prakash*.

The Court found that the alleged recovery was joint, the petitioner and Bina were similarly situated on the prosecution’s case, and the same considerations of custody and trial delay that supported Bina’s bail applied to the petitioner; parity therefore favoured release.

Although 260 grams exceeded heroin’s 250-gram commercial-quantity threshold, the Court noted that the stated weight included a transparent wax bag and that the net weight of the contraband was not clear from the record.

It treated the marginal excess as relevant to the Section 37 assessment, while also giving weight to the petitioner’s more than two years in custody and the trial’s lack of conclusion.

The petitioner’s antecedents were relevant, but, applying *Prabhakar Tewari*, they were not by themselves conclusive; the Court considered that potential risks could be addressed through stringent bail conditions.

The State may seek cancellation for breach of conditions; the Court made no observation on the merits of the trial.