NDPS Section 37 embargo applies where alleged drug proceeds and financing remain matters for trial.

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in FIR No. 271 dated 09.10.2025, initially registered under Section 21-C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, with Sections 29 and 27-A subsequently added.

The FIR arose from the alleged recovery of 2 kilograms 61 grams of heroin from co-accused Dimple pursuant to a search conducted under Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act.

The petitioner was arrested on 14.10.2025 and allegedly disclosed that he had received ₹5.50 lakhs, representing proceeds from the sale of heroin, from co-accused Dimple.

Pursuant to that disclosure, the amount was allegedly recovered from beneath fodder in the cattle shed at the petitioner’s residence.

The petitioner contended that the recovered money constituted legitimate agricultural sale proceeds, relying upon J-Forms and documents relating to agricultural transactions.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

The alleged offences included Sections 21-C, 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act, concerning possession of commercial-quantity narcotics, financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders, and abetment or criminal conspiracy, respectively.

Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent limitations on bail in cases involving offences punishable under Section 27-A or involving commercial quantities; bail may be granted only where the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

At the bail stage, disputed questions concerning the source, authenticity and evidentiary value of documents ordinarily require evaluation during trial and cannot be conclusively determined.

The Court found that the prosecution’s allegation was not limited to mere possession of money but involved its alleged receipt as drug proceeds pursuant to the petitioner’s disclosure, followed by recovery from a concealed location in his residential premises.

This circumstance was considered relevant to the allegation of financing illicit drug trafficking.

The petitioner’s reliance on J-Forms and agricultural sale documents did not provide an unequivocal explanation for the entire recovered amount.

Further, the documents relating to M/s Bitta Aulakh Trading Company concerned Manjit Kaur, while the documents relating to M/s Sakatar Singh Kuljinder Singh concerned the petitioner; their inter se correlation and evidentiary value required proof at trial.

Since the trial was at an incipient stage and the allegations were grave, the Court held that it could not record the requisite satisfaction under Section 37 that the petitioner was not guilty or unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

The petition under Section 483 of the BNSS was accordingly dismissed.

All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.