Regular Bail granted for intermediate quantity of Methamphetamine as Section 37 NDPS Act rigours do not apply.

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding FIR No. 450/2025 involving Sections 21 and 61 of the NDPS Act.

The case originated from the arrest of co-accused Aditya Chauhan, from whom 13.85 grams of "smack-like-material" was recovered.

He disclosed purchasing the substance from the petitioner.

On 01.12.2025, the petitioner was apprehended, and 33.70 grams of Methamphetamine was recovered from her person.

The petitioner had been in custody for approximately 7.5 months, and her previous bail application was dismissed by the Special Court on 13.04.2026.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail considering the quantity of the seized substance and the duration of her custody.

2. Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and the alleged involvement of her family in drug syndicates are sufficient grounds for denial of bail.

The court primarily applied Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, which mandates stringent conditions for bail only in cases involving "commercial quantities" of narcotics.

For "intermediate quantities," standard bail principles apply.

The court also relied on the Supreme Court precedents of Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. (2012) and Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020), which establish that the mere pendency of other criminal proceedings does not necessitate the denial of bail.

The court found that the 33.70 grams of Methamphetamine recovered fell within the "intermediate quantity" (2g to 50g), thereby rendering the strict rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act inapplicable.

Justice Jalan noted that investigation was complete, charges had been framed, and the petitioner had not been sought for custodial interrogation during her seven-month incarceration.

The court granted parity with the co-accused, who was already on bail.

Regarding the State’s objection to the petitioner's antecedents (two other FIRs), the court reasoned that she had not been convicted in those cases and was currently on bail in both.

Furthermore, the court held that the alleged criminal involvement of the petitioner's family members could not be used as a determinative factor against her individual application.

Given that only 3 out of 19 witnesses had been examined, the court concluded that the trial would likely be prolonged.

The holding clarified that since the recovery was of an intermediate quantity and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, continued incarceration was unjustified.

Relief was granted subject to a bail bond of Rs. 50,000, one surety of like amount, and conditions including regular court attendance, notification of address changes, and a prohibition against contacting witnesses or committing further offences.