Regular bail denied in NDPS case involving commercial quantity where Section 37 conditions remained unsatisfied.

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in FIR No. 120 dated 25.05.2025, registered under Sections 15-C and 27-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad.

A previous bail petition had been dismissed as withdrawn on 07.04.2026.

The prosecution alleged recovery of 78.670 kilograms of poppy husk from the petitioner on 25.05.2025.

Section 27-A of the NDPS Act was subsequently added on the basis of the petitioner’s disclosure regarding procurement from co-accused Davender Kumar, who allegedly implicated other accused persons.

The petitioner contended that no recovery had been effected from him, that he had been apprehended in Rajasthan, and that the contraband had been falsely planted.

He also relied on a complaint to the competent authority in Rajasthan and the alleged mobile-phone location of a police official to support his version.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the recovery was of commercial quantity, the petitioner had been involved in several other criminal cases, and he had a previous conviction under the Excise Act.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in view of the alleged recovery of 78.670 kilograms of poppy husk, a commercial quantity, and the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act?

Whether the petitioner’s allegations of false implication, illegal apprehension in Rajasthan, and fabrication of recovery justified bail at the present stage?

Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and previous conviction weighed against the grant of bail?

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

It further applied Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for bail where the alleged offence involves commercial quantity, requiring the Court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

The Court also treated disputed factual issues, including the alleged place of apprehension, false implication, and evidentiary value of mobile-phone location data, as matters ordinarily requiring appreciation of evidence at trial rather than determination in bail proceedings.

Criminal antecedents and previous conviction are relevant circumstances in assessing whether bail should be granted.

The alleged recovery of 78.670 kilograms of poppy husk was held to fall within commercial quantity, thereby attracting the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The petitioner’s involvement in multiple criminal cases and his previous conviction under the Excise Act further weighed against him.

The Court declined to adjudicate the petitioner’s allegations of false implication and apprehension in Rajasthan because they raised disputed questions of fact.

The alleged mobile-phone location of a police official and the competing versions regarding the place of recovery required evidentiary assessment by the Trial Court and could not, at the bail stage, justify a finding in the petitioner’s favour.

Considering the commercial quantity, the petitioner’s antecedents, and the statutory embargo under Section 37, the Court was not satisfied that the conditions for bail had been met.

The Court found that the alleged commercial-quantity recovery, the petitioner’s multiple criminal cases, previous conviction, and the operation of Section 37 of the NDPS Act justified refusal of bail.

The petition was accordingly dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, and all pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of as infructuous.