Section 37 NDPS rigors are inapplicable to intermediate quantity seizures absent prima facie evidence of financing under Section 27-A.

On November 29, 2025, a police search of the accused’s residence resulted in the recovery of 10 Yaba tablets, 72 SPM-PRX capsules, and Indian currency totaling Rs. 12,015

The accused was arrested and subsequently charge-sheeted under Sections 21(b), 22(b), 25, 27-A, and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985

The prosecution relied on a statement recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, wherein a police officer claimed the accused confessed to financing drug trafficking and selling contraband

The applicant moved for bail, contending that the recovery constituted an "intermediate quantity" and that Section 27-A was wrongly applied to invoke the strict bail rigors of Section 37

The prosecution opposed bail, citing the gravity of the offense and a prior criminal antecedent (Khowai PS case No. 27 of 2020)

1. Whether there are sufficient prima facie materials to justify the application of Section 27-A of the NDPS Act (financing illicit traffic) to the present case

2. Whether the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the recovery of an intermediate quantity of contraband

3. Whether the accused is entitled to bail considering his period of detention and previous acquittal in a similar case

Sections 21(b), 22(b), 25, 27-A, and 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

Smt. Rupam Debbarma v. State of Tripura (BA No. 10 of 2026) to define "financing" under Section 2(viii-b), noting that it requires direct or indirect funding of illicit activities

Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which held that the gravity of an offense and pending criminal cases are not sole grounds for refusing bail

Puranmal Jat v. State of Rajasthan was cited to establish that the restrictive conditions of Section 37 do not apply to cases involving intermediate quantities

The court found that the seized contraband (10 Yaba tablets and 72 capsules) fell within the "intermediate quantity" category

Regarding Section 27-A, the court observed that the only evidence of "financing" was an oral confession made to a police officer during interrogation, which lacked corroboration by other statements or materials

Consequently, the court held that the rigors of Section 37—which require the court to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty—did not apply

Addressing the accused's criminal history, the court noted that his previous involvement in a 2020 NDPS case ended in an acquittal due to procedural non-compliance with Sections 42 and 50, casting doubt on the genuineness of that prior recovery

Given the accused's permanent residence and length of custody, the court determined that continued detention was unnecessary

The bail prayer was allowed. The court ordered the release of Partha Dey on a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety, subject to conditions including: (i) regular court attendance and fortnightly reporting to the Special Judge; (ii) a prohibition on contacting witnesses; (iii) a restriction on leaving the jurisdiction without permission; and (iv) the provision of a mobile number to the court for monitoring