Vehicle driver’s conscious possession of commercial contraband triggers Section 37 NDPS Act rigours against bail.

On December 26, 2025, police officials intercepted the petitioner at Rampur Mor, Chamba, while she was driving a scooty without a number plate

Upon being asked to open the vehicle's storage compartment (dicky), the petitioner claimed the lock was non-functional

A mechanic was summoned to open the lock, leading to the recovery of 1.402 kilograms of charas

The petitioner was arrested and charged under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985

Her initial bail application was rejected by the Special Judge, Chamba, on January 23, 2026

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, contending that she was falsely implicated due to matrimonial disputes, lacked "conscious possession" of the contraband, and was not informed of the grounds of arrest

The court primarily applied Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, which mandates that for offences 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 further offences

It relied on the definition of "conscious possession" established in Madan Lal v. State of H.P. (2003), which holds that once possession is established, the burden shifts to the accused under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act to prove lack of knowledge

the court applied the "reasonable grounds" standard from State of Kerala v. Rajesh (2020), which requires more than a prima facie case to override the statutory ban on bail

in NDPS cases involving commercial quantities, "negation of bail is the rule and its grant is an exception"

The court rejected the petitioner’s plea of lack of conscious possession, observing that she was the sole driver of the vehicle from which the contraband was recovered

Applying Madan Lal, the court held that because the contraband was found in a vehicle under her control, the statutory presumption of a culpable mental state under Sections 35 and 54 applied, and she failed to provide evidence to rebut this at the bail stage

Regarding Section 37, the court found that the recovery of 1.402 kg of charas (a commercial quantity) triggered the statutory rigors; the petitioner failed to demonstrate "substantial probable causes" to believe she was not guilty

The court further dismissed the procedural challenge regarding the grounds of arrest, noting that the petitioner was present during the recovery and search, and her father was duly informed, satisfying the mandate of Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra

The court also clarified that personal hardships, such as the petitioner having minor children, cannot override the gravity of heinous offences involving commercial quantities of narcotics

The court held that the petitioner failed to satisfy the mandatory twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, as there were no reasonable grounds to believe she was not guilty of the offence

The court reaffirmed that in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics, the rule of "bail is the rule, jail is an exception" is reversed by the statutory mandate of the NDPS Act

The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Special Judge for bail only after the filing of the challan and the collection of further investigative material