In commercial-quantity NDPS cases, prolonged incarceration alone cannot override Section 37’s twin bail conditions.

On 03.06.2024, during routine police nakabandi on a national highway, the police stopped a Hyundai Aura allegedly escorting a Nissan Datsun Go car. The applicants, Tejpal Singh and Purshottam Das, were occupants of the latter vehicle. On inquiry, they allegedly disclosed that a sack containing poppy husk was being carried in the car. Search resulted in the recovery of 125.700 kilograms of poppy husk, a commercial quantity, and the applicants were arrested.

The police filed a charge-sheet for offences under Sections 8, 15 and 29 of the NDPS Act, and charges were framed. The applicants challenged the rejection of their bail applications under Section 483 of the BNSS, contending that Sections 42, 50 and 52A of the NDPS Act and the applicable Rules had not been complied with.

They also relied on alleged inconsistencies in the timing of the seizure memo, delay in inventory certification and dispatch of samples to the FSL, parity with co-accused who had been granted bail, and prolonged incarceration.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the recovery was from the applicants’ conscious possession and that the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied.

Whether the search and seizure were vitiated by non-compliance with Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act, when the recovery was made during a chance recovery from a vehicle in transit at a public place.

Whether the alleged non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act invalidated the recovery.

Whether the delay in inventory certification and forwarding samples to the FSL constituted non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the 2022 Rules sufficient to justify bail.

Whether the timing of the seizure memo indicated that it had been prepared before the search and thereby undermined the prosecution case.

Whether the applicants were entitled to bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused or prolonged incarceration, notwithstanding the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The Court applied Section 43 of the NDPS Act, which permits seizure and arrest in a public place or while a vehicle is in transit during a chance recovery; consequently, Sections 41 and 42, including the requirement of recording and forwarding prior information, do not apply in such circumstances.

Relying on Gurmeet Singh Rai Sikh v. State, 2018 SCC OnLine Raj 2254, and Kallu Khan v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 194, the Court held that Section 50 concerns personal search and is not mandatory for recovery from a vehicle.

Under Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, (2024) 11 SCC 372, and Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2025) 8 SCC 452, delay or procedural irregularity in compliance with Section 52A and the Rules does not, by itself, vitiate the trial or entitle an accused to bail, unless the prosecution evidence concerning recovery is rendered doubtful.

Bail in a commercial-quantity case is governed by the twin conditions in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, requiring reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

The Court further relied on Union of India v. Vigin K. Varghese, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2440, Union of India v. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3049, State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh @ Billa, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1058, and State of Punjab v. Sukhvinder Singh @ Gora, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 671, holding that prolonged incarceration or the right to speedy trial cannot, by itself, override Section 37.

Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act also permit presumptions concerning culpable mental state and possession unless rebutted.

The Court found that the recovery occurred on a national highway during routine nakabandi, without prior information or personal knowledge of an NDPS offence; therefore, it was governed by Section 43 and the challenge based on Sections 41 and 42 failed.

Since the contraband was recovered from the vehicle rather than the applicants’ bodies, Section 50 was not legally attracted; in any event, notices had been served before the search after the applicants disclosed the presence of the sack.

The delay in obtaining Magistrate certification of the inventory and sending samples to the FSL constituted, at most, delayed compliance, and the record prima facie showed that the samples remained intact and untampered with.

The apparent 9:50 a.m. time in the seizure memo referred to the commencement of continuous proceedings, not to its completion before the statutory notices and search; the exhibits and the seizure officer’s testimony supported a continuous sequence of events.

Parity was unavailable because the released co-accused were occupants of a different vehicle and the contraband had allegedly been recovered from the conscious possession of the present applicants.

Finally, the quantity recovered was commercial, the applicants had not rebutted the presumptions under Sections 35 and 54, and they failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 37. The Court also found no demonstrated unjustified delay in the trial sufficient to warrant bail.

As the applicants failed to satisfy the mandatory twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, both bail applications were dismissed.

The Trial Court was directed to expedite the trial, with the clarification that the observations were confined to adjudication of bail and would not prejudice the trial.