Repeat offender status and recovery of commercial quantity trigger absolute statutory bar to bail under Section 37 NDPS Act.

On April 14, 2023, police intercepted a car at Tarnah Bridge. Three individuals fled the vehicle; one, Bagh Hussain, was injured after jumping from the bridge and identified the petitioner (Raj Wali @ Sher Ali) as one of those who escaped.

A search of the vehicle yielded 400 grams of heroin hidden in the stereo and two mobile phones, one of which was registered to the petitioner’s wife.

The petitioner was later arrested on September 22, 2023, while in custody for another NDPS case in Punjab.

Following the rejection of his bail plea by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kathua, on July 28, 2025, the petitioner moved the High Court for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

1. Whether the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the applicant for the recovery of a commercial quantity of heroin.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite being a repeat offender with multiple pending FIRs under the NDPS Act.

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

Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, establishing that in commercial quantity cases, negation of bail is the rule and grant is the exception.

Union of India v. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade, holding that statutory rigours under Section 37 cannot be diluted for organized drug trafficking even after a year of incarceration.

The standard for assessing evidence at the bail stage as per State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta.

The court observed that 400 grams of heroin constitutes a commercial quantity, triggering the mandatory "twin conditions" of Section 37 NDPS Act.

It rejected the petitioner’s argument that he was implicated solely on a co-accused's statement, noting independent evidence such as the mobile phone registered to his wife and his flight from the scene.

The court highlighted that the petitioner is a "habitual offender" involved in five other criminal cases of a similar nature, which negates the possibility of the court believing he would not re-offend.

It further held that a critical analysis of evidence (like the hostility of the petitioner's wife) is impermissible at the bail stage as it may prejudice the trial.

Given the gravity of the offence and the threat to society, the court prioritized public health over personal liberty.

The court emphasized that habitual offenders do not deserve "zero leniency" in drug trafficking cases; consequently, the High Court found the bail application devoid of merit and dismissed it.