Non-applicability of Section 37 NDPS Act Bar Where Linking Evidence to Commercial Quantity Contraband is Doubtful

The Petitioner, a Nigerian national, was arrested following the apprehension of a co-accused, Santan Goswami, who was found in possession of 33 grams of MDMA.

Based on Goswami’s disclosure statement, the Petitioner was apprehended and found with 47 grams of Methamphetamine.

The prosecution further alleged that a diary seized from a premises in Chhattarpur (allegedly rented by the Petitioner) contained tracking numbers for a parcel at the Foreign Post Office containing 6,790 MDMA tablets.

The Petitioner argued that the Methamphetamine recovered was not a commercial quantity and denied any connection to the Chhattarpur premises or the MDMA shipment, noting that the lease deed provided by the landlord was unsigned and the delivery slips bore fictitious names.

1. Whether the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply when the connection between the accused and the commercial quantity of contraband is prima facie doubtful.

2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the expiration of his Visa.

The court primarily applied Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, which stipulates twin conditions for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities—namely, that the court must be satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Additionally, the court applied the principle that if there is significant doubt regarding the reliability of the investigator's case or the nexus between the accused and the contraband, the strict bar of Section 37 may not be invoked.

The court observed that the quantity of Methamphetamine directly recovered from the Petitioner (47 grams) was not a commercial quantity.

Regarding the 6,790 MDMA tablets (commercial quantity), the court found the prosecution's link to the Petitioner 'fails to inspire confidence'.

The IO’s reliance on a dairy page containing only four handwritten numbers, seized from a Chhattarpur apartment, was deemed insufficient because the Petitioner’s tenancy was supported only by an unsigned and allegedly fabricated lease deed.

Since the MDMA was recovered from a post office and the delivery slips bore fictitious names, the court held that the version of the IO regarding the recovery was 'completely doubtful'.

Consequently, the court determined that the rigours of Section 37 did not operate in this specific instance.

The Petitioner was granted bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and one surety. However, due to the Petitioner's expired Visa, the Court directed the Jail Superintendent to hand over the Petitioner's custody to the Foreign Regional Registration Office (FRRO) immediately upon the acceptance of bail bonds by the trial court.