### Financial Transactions and CDR Evidence Justify Invoking Section 37 NDPS Rigours Against Alleged Supplier Judgment Summary: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh dismissed a bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS by an alleged narcotics supplier. Despite no physical recovery being made directly from the petitioner, the Court held that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were attracted due to the recovery of a commercial quantity of *charas* from co-accused individuals. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that he was implicated solely on the basis of inadmissible confessional statements of co-accused. It observed that the prosecution had established a "substantial probable cause" through corroborative circumstantial evidence, specifically Call Detail Records (CDRs) placing the parties at the same location and a documented bank transfer of ₹40,000 from the co-accused to the petitioner as advance payment. Furthermore, the petitioner’s history as a "habitual offender" with multiple prior NDPS FIRs prevented the Court from forming a reasonable belief that he was not guilty or unlikely to commit further offences. The ruling reaffirms that financial trails and technical evidence can satisfy the mandatory "twin conditions" for denying bail in commercial quantity cases.

The petitioner, Dhani Ram, sought bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with FIR No. 45/2025 involving Sections 8, 20, and 29 of the NDPS Act.

On April 26, 2025, police intercepted a motorcycle and recovered 1025 grams of charas (commercial quantity) from co-accused Shanker and Shambu.

Investigation revealed the petitioner as the main supplier based on Call Detail Reports (CDRs) showing contact between the petitioner and Shanker at Pathankote, and bank records showing a Rs. 40,000 transfer to the petitioner’s account.

The petitioner argued he was implicated solely on the co-accused's statement and no recovery was made directly from him.

The Trial Court denied bail on October 7, 2025.

1. Whether the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to an accused from whom no physical recovery was made but who is linked to the crime via circumstantial and financial evidence.

2. Whether the petitioner satisfied the twin conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics.

The Court applied Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which mandates that bail for commercial quantities can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and not likely to commit further offences.

It relied on State of Kerala v. Rajesh, defining "reasonable grounds" as substantial probable causes beyond a prima facie case.

NCB v. Mohit Aggarwal, clarifying that the filing of a charge-sheet or length of custody do not override Section 37.

The court cited State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora (2026), affirming that Section 37(1)(b)(ii) conditions are mandatory and entail no relaxation.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s contention that the case rested solely on inadmissible confessional statements of co-accused.

It reasoned that while confessions are insufficient for conviction, the prosecution presented corroborated circumstantial evidence, including bank transactions of Rs. 40,000 as advance payment and CDRs placing the petitioner and co-accused at the same location.

The Court emphasized the "rare" investigative effort to trace the "kingpin" supplier rather than just the carriers.

Given the petitioner’s prior criminal history involving four other FIRs (three under the NDPS Act), the Court found it impossible to conclude that the petitioner was unlikely to commit further offences if released. Consequently, the "reasonable grounds" required to bypass the rigors of Section 37 were not met.

Given the commercial quantity of the contraband, the corroborative financial and telephonic evidence, and the petitioner's history as a habitual offender, the bail application was dismissed.