Section 37’s bail restrictions do not apply to offences involving intermediate quantities of contraband.

The petitioners, arrayed as accused Nos. 3 and 4, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered under Sections 22(C) and 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The case began with the seizure of 22 grams of alleged MDMA from accused No. 1 on 31 July 2026.

Accused Nos. 2 to 4 were arrested on 5 August 2026; 9 grams of alleged MDMA was recovered from accused No. 2, and, on 9 August, 8 grams of alleged MDMA, two mobile phones and a two-wheeler were seized at the petitioners’ instance.

The Sessions Court had rejected the petitioners’ bail application.

The petitioners had no criminal antecedents; the State alleged that they trafficked drugs with accused Nos. 1 and 2 and opposed bail while investigation remained in progress.

1. Whether the petitioners should be enlarged on regular bail in the circumstances of the case

2. Whether the rigour of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act applied to the petitioners’ case, given the quantity seized at their instance

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the High Court with jurisdiction to grant bail.

Sections 8(c) and 22(C) of the NDPS Act were the provisions under which the petitioners were accused.

Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act imposes additional restrictions on bail in the cases to which it applies; the Court held that its rigour did not apply here because the contraband seized at the petitioners’ instance was of intermediate quantity.

The Court also considered the absence of criminal antecedents, the evidentiary material supporting the alleged trafficking, and the petitioners’ undertaking to comply with conditions.

The Court noted that the 8 grams of alleged MDMA were seized from a vehicle at the petitioners’ instance four days after their arrest and treated that quantity as intermediate, finding Section 37(1)(b)’s rigour inapplicable.

Although the State alleged that the petitioners trafficked drugs with accused Nos. 1 and 2, the Court found that the investigation had produced no material supporting that allegation against the petitioners.

Their lack of criminal antecedents and undertaking to cooperate and comply with conditions further supported release on bail.

These included a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 each with two sureties, regular court appearances, non-interference with witnesses, refraining from similar offences, remaining within the Trial Court’s jurisdiction without permission, and reporting to Yelahanka Police Station on the first and third Sunday of each month until the investigation was completed and the charge sheet filed.