Satisfying Section 37 NDPS Act: Lack of Conscious Possession and Knowledge Negates Rigors of Commercial Quantity Bail

The petitioner was arrested on February 5, 2025, following a police search of a vehicle parked near Nurpur.

The police recovered 2.950 kg of Charas from the plastic cover of the left door of the vehicle.

While the petitioner was found in the driver's seat, the vehicle was owned by a co-accused who was sitting in the passenger seat.

The petitioner sought bail, arguing he was falsely implicated, had no knowledge of the hidden contraband, and had merely accompanied the co-accused for an outing.

At the time of the hearing, the petitioner had been incarcerated for approximately 16 months with only two out of twenty-four witnesses examined.

1. Whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner is not guilty and is unlikely to commit further offenses, thereby satisfying the twin conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

2. Whether the petitioner's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution warrants the dilution of statutory rigors against bail during prolonged incarceration.

Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, which mandates that for commercial quantities, bail can only be granted if the court is satisfied the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to offend while on bail.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding bail jurisdiction.

The court relied on State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh (2026) to harmonize the rigors of Section 37 with the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The court cited V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director (2024) and K.A. Najeeb, establishing that constitutional courts may grant bail despite statutory bars if trial delay leads to an unreasonable deprivation of liberty.

The court found that the "twin conditions" of Section 37 were prima facie satisfied because the investigation failed to show any recovery from the petitioner's person or any nexus between him and the contraband found in the co-accused's vehicle.

The Status Report suggested the petitioner had no knowledge the contraband was planted in the car.

Consequently, the court held that the accusations under Sections 20, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act were currently unsupported by corroborative evidence.

Applying the principle of "calibrated constitutional discretion," the court noted that with 22 witnesses remaining and the petitioner already in custody for 16 months, the trial was unlikely to conclude soon.

This delay, coupled with the lack of criminal antecedents, rendered continued incarceration punitive rather than preventative.

It held that statutory rigors must melt down when trial progress is negligible and no prima facie guilt is established.

The petitioner was ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 75,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions including monthly reporting to the SHO, attending all trial dates, and not tampering with evidence; relief is subject to the final outcome of the reference pending before a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Tasleem Ahmed v. State.