Procedural Irregularities in Sampling and Weight Discrepancies Do Not Negate Section 37 Rigors for Bail.

The petitioner was arrested on September 30, 2024, following the recovery of a substance weighing 344 grams, which the respondent-NCB’s field Drug Detection Kit identified as Heroin.

On October 5, 2024, a Magistrate oversaw the drawal of two samples of 5 grams each for analysis.

The CRCL report dated January 7, 2025, revealed that the substance tested negative for Heroin but positive for Tramadol and other substances.

The CRCL noted the sample received weighed only 2.8 grams, despite 5 grams being sent.

After the Trial Court framed charges under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act for possession of a commercial quantity of Tramadol on January 28, 2026, the petitioner sought bail from the High Court, citing the chemical discrepancy and the weight variance.

1. Whether discrepancies between a preliminary field test (Heroin) and a forensic laboratory report (Tramadol) entitle an accused to bail under the NDPS Act.

2. Whether a variance in the weight of samples between the time of drawal and laboratory receipt is sufficient to bypass the rigors of Section 37 for the grant of bail.

3. Whether the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply when an accused is charged with possessing a commercial quantity of a substance discovered via forensic analysis rather than the substance initially alleged.

The court primarily applied Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which mandates a "twin test" for bail in cases involving commercial quantities: the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit further offences while on bail.

It relied on Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif (2024), establishing that procedural irregularities or delays in Section 52-A compliance do not automatically entitle an accused to bail or vitiate the trial.

Furthermore, it applied the principle from State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora (2026), which held that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 cannot override the mandatory statutory requirements of Section 37 in NDPS cases.

The court also noted Rule 13(1) of the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, regarding the scientific determination of contraband.

The court reasoned that for the purpose of bail, the Forensic Science Laboratory (CRCL) report takes precedence over preliminary field detection kits, as the latter’s purpose is temporary pending scientific verification.

Regarding the weight discrepancy (5g vs 2.8g), the court observed that since the CRCL report noted the seals were "intact" and matched the test memo, the variance is a "triable issue" for cross-examination during trial rather than a ground for bail.

The court distinguished the Allahabad High Court precedent in Aditya Kumar by noting that current Supreme Court jurisprudence in Kashif emphasizes that procedural lapses do not mandate release.

Since the Trial Court had already framed charges for a commercial quantity of Tramadol, the court found that the statutory bar under Section 37 was active.

The court concluded it could not record a satisfaction of "not guilty" at this stage because the merits of the charge are matters of evidence for trial.

The Court found no reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner was not guilty of the charges framed under Section 8/22.

Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.