Mandatory Compliance with Section 37 NDPS Act Overrides Violations of Procedural Arrest Norms and Prolonged Incarceration.

On September 29, 2025, officials from the Customs Division, Agartala, intercepted a truck and a motorcycle based on secret information.

A total of 11.03 kg of methamphetamine (Yaba) tablets were recovered from a plastic sack and hidden trolley bags within the vehicle.

The four accused persons (Sujit Das, Suman Das, Rupak Sarkar, and Raju Das) were arrested and have been in custody since September 30, 2025.

The petitioners moved for bail, alleging procedural lapses in the arrest and seizure, specifically that the arrest memos were not attested by family members or local respectable persons, and that the accused were not informed of their right to notify relatives.

1. Whether the non-compliance with the procedural safeguards of Section 36 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding arrest procedures, is sufficient to override the stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail despite the recovery of commercial quantities of contraband.

The court primarily applied Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, which mandates twin conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantities: (i) reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty, and (ii) that the accused is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

It applied Section 36 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 41B of the Cr.P.C.) regarding the procedure for arrest and duties of the arresting officer.

The court relied on the Supreme Court precedent in State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora (2026), which held that Section 37 conditions are mandatory and cannot be relaxed solely on grounds of prolonged incarceration or Article 21 rights unless the twin conditions are met.

The court acknowledged the respondent's admission that Section 36 of the BNSS was violated because signatures of relatives or local witnesses were not obtained on the arrest memos.

Directly applying the rule, the court reasoned that such procedural irregularities do not automatically entitle an accused to bail when the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply.

Relying on Sukhwinder Singh, the court emphasized that Article 21 rights must be read harmoniously with Section 37, and the statutory bar remains primary in cases of commercial quantity.

The court found that the case diary contained prima facie materials, including witness statements and a Forensic report confirming the presence of methamphetamine, which corroborated the seizure of a "huge quantity" of contraband.

Consequently, the court could not form a satisfaction that the accused were "not guilty" of the alleged offences.

The holding affirmed that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 cannot be the sole ground to bypass the NDPS Act's specialized provisions.

The bail applications were rejected, and the court directed the return of the case diary and records to the respective authorities.