Section 37 NDPS Act bar precludes bail for commercial quantity recovery and established supplier nexus.

On May 31, 2025, police apprehended co-accused persons in Bhilai for attempting to sell psychotropic tablets

Based on their memorandum statements, the applicant was identified as the primary supplier and arrested on June 2, 2025

A subsequent search of the applicant's residence in Gondia resulted in the seizure of 11,376 capsules of Spas Trancan Plus, 12,000 tablets of Alprazolam, and 4,176 tablets of Spas Proxyvon

The applicant moved for bail, contending he is a registered pharmacist who was falsely implicated following an altercation with police, and that mandatory NDPS seizure procedures were violated

The prosecution opposed bail, citing Call Detail Records (CDR) that established a nexus between the accused persons and the applicant's role as a bulk supplier

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the seizure of a commercial quantity of psychotropic substances

2. Whether the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies to the applicant despite his status as a licensed pharmacist and lack of prior criminal antecedents

The court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the power to grant bail

The primary legal framework was the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, specifically Section 37, which mandates that for offenses involving commercial quantities, bail can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offense while on bail

The court also referenced Sections 22, 8(b), and 27(a) of the NDPS Act and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The court examined the evidence presented via a personal affidavit from the Investigating Officer, which detailed the applicant's role as the "main supplier" who procured drugs from Gondia for illegal sale in Durg and Bhilai

While the applicant claimed professional immunity as a pharmacist, the court noted he failed to produce any valid license or documentation authorizing the possession of such a massive quantity of contraband at his residence

The court observed that the FSL report confirmed the presence of Dicyclomine, Tramadol, Acetaminophen, and Alprazolam in the seized samples

The court reasoned that the substantial quantity seized and the established CDR nexus between the accused persons prima facie demonstrated the applicant's active involvement in the drug trade

Consequently, the court determined that the applicant failed to overcome the "rigours" and statutory bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act

The court directed the trial court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, ideally within six months, provided there is no legal impediment