Recovery of commercial quantity of heroin attracts Section 37 NDPS Act rigours despite alleged procedural irregularities.

On March 27, 2025, Delhi Police received PCR calls regarding illegal narcotics storage in Nand Nagri.

Initial searches were fruitless, but a subsequent secret tip led to the apprehension of Ajay Kumar at 2:00 PM near House No. E-1/458.

Following a search conducted in the presence of the ACP (after the accused declined a search before a Magistrate/Gazetted Officer under Section 50), 250.37 grams of heroin was recovered from the accused's pocket.

The substance was classified as a "commercial quantity."

The applicant sought regular bail on the grounds of minor weight discrepancies, lack of prior involvement, and an 11-month period of judicial custody.

Whether the alleged discrepancies in weight and procedural delays in FSL testing are sufficient to grant bail in an NDPS case involving commercial quantities.

Whether the applicant has satisfied the twin conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The Court primarily applied Section 37 of any Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which mandates that for commercial quantities, bail can only be granted if the court is satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit further offences.

It relied on Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal (2022), defining "reasonable grounds" as credible and plausible grounds.

Furthermore, the court applied the principle from Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif (2024), which establishes that procedural irregularities under Section 52A do not automatically entitle an accused to bail as they are matters for trial.

The Court reasoned that the recovery of 250.37 grams of heroin constitutes a commercial quantity, thereby invoking the strict prohibitions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Regarding the defense's arguments on weight discrepancies (5–7 grams), the court noted that such variations often occur due to moisture or equipment differences and do not negate the commercial nature of the seizure.

Addressing the Section 52A compliance, the court observed that the seal was intact upon arrival at the FSL, and following the Kashif precedent, any alleged procedural lapses or delays in testing are evidentiary matters to be adjudicated during trial, not at the bail stage.

The court found that the applicant failed to provide "reasonable grounds" to believe he was not guilty, thus failing the twin-condition test.

It held that since the recovery involved a commercial quantity and the FSL report supported the prosecution's case, the statutory bar under Section 37 was not overcome.

The court clarified that observations made in the order do not constitute an opinion on the merits of the final trial.