Material discrepancy over substance identity, coupled with no recovery, can satisfy NDPS Section 37’s twin bail conditions.

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an NDPS case alleging offences under Sections 22(C), 25, 29, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and co-accused Kartik were apprehended together; 99.25 grams of a substance was recovered from Kartik, while nothing was recovered from the petitioner or his scooter.

The field-testing kit identified the substance as methaqualone, whereas the FSL report identified it as methamphetamine.

The petitioner had been in custody for over six months, had no prior involvement recorded, and the case was at the stage of arguments on charge.

His earlier bail application had been dismissed.

Whether the petitioner satisfied the twin conditions for bail under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, given the discrepancy between the field-test result and the FSL report concerning the substance recovered.

Whether the material connecting the petitioner to the alleged offence, together with his circumstances, supported a finding that he was not likely to commit an offence while on bail.

Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act imposes twin conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantity: where the Public Prosecutor opposes release, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and that the accused is not likely to commit an offence while on bail.

The court relied on State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh @ Billa, 2026 INSC 618, and State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1751, for the requirement that both conditions be addressed.

Under Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, (2022) 18 SCC 374, and Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari, (2007) 7 SCC 798, the court need not determine guilt at the bail stage; it must assess whether reasonable grounds for the requisite belief exist.

The court also referred to Ravi Manoj Rai v. Union of India, (2025) 1 HCC (Bom) 1, concerning the limited weight of an uncorroborated co-accused statement at the bail stage.

The Court treated the conflict between the field-test identification of methaqualone and the FSL identification of methamphetamine as material: 99.25 grams would be below the commercial quantity for methaqualone but above the 50-gram commercial threshold for methamphetamine.

It expressly left the discrepancy’s merits for trial, but considered it relevant to the Section 37 assessment.

The Court also noted that the entire recovery was from Kartik, nothing was recovered from the petitioner, the alleged further role rested on a co-accused’s disclosure statement, and the status report did not clearly establish that CCTV footage showed the petitioner handling contraband.

Taken together, these circumstances supported the tentative conclusion that the first Section 37 condition was met.

The petitioner’s age, clean antecedents, satisfactory jail conduct and period in custody, with no material indicating likely reoffending, supported the second condition.

Bail was subject to a personal bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties of like amount and specified conditions, including travel restrictions, address and phone-number disclosure, reporting to the investigating officer, non-interference with witnesses, and attendance at trial; breach could form the basis for seeking cancellation.

The Court requested that the trial be expedited and clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application.