Section 37 NDPS Act precludes bail where prima facie evidence links the accused to commercial quantity contraband.

The accused, Mantanu Saha, was arrested on November 10, 2025, in connection with GRP S No. 104/2025 under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

On October 16, 2025, police seized 90,000 bottles of 'Eskuf' cough syrup from two coaches of a goods train at Jirania railway station.

The prosecution linked the accused to the contraband through three handwritten permits from the Madhavbari Truck Syndicate naming "M. Saha" as the recipient.

Additionally, police recovered Rs. 1,07,000 from the accused’s residence.

The accused sought bail, arguing that the challans were manipulated, his name was generic, and the cash was from a legitimate rubber business.

1. Whether there exist reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty of the alleged offenses so as to overcome the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

2. Whether the circumstantial evidence and witness statements in the Case Diary establish sufficient prima facie complicity to deny bail in a case involving commercial quantities.

The court applied Section 21(c) and Section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, regarding the possession of commercial quantities of contraband and criminal conspiracy.

It primarily relied on the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which stipulates that for offenses involving commercial quantities, bail shall not be granted unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offense while on bail.

The court scrutinized the Case Diary and found significant incriminating materials against the accused.

It observed that at least three permits from the date of the incident named "M. Saha" as the recipient of the articles.

The court placed weight on the statement of an Inter-state Truck Terminus (ISTT) employee, who claimed that co-accused Rajib Sengupta identified Mantanu Saha as the recipient who would pay the vehicle hiring costs.

A godown employee testified that the accused frequently collected "un-accounted items" from a co-accused’s godown, and that the description of the seized boxes matched those previously handled by the accused.

The court reasoned that these materials collectively prevented it from reaching a "reasonable satisfaction" of the accused's innocence as required by Section 37.

Given the "huge quantity" of contraband, the court held that the statutory rigors for bail remained active.

The court ordered the return of the Case Diary and the re-consignment of the trial court records to the lower court.