ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: NDPS Act — Bail — Quantity — Commercial vs non-commercial Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Ss. 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) — Bail — Contraband not commercial quantity — Rigour of Section 37 not attracted — Accused entitled to consideration under ordinary bail principles. Paras 3–4 Held, where the seized contraband is not a commercial quantity, the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not apply, and bail is to be considered on general principles governing grant of bail.

Friday, December 19, 2025

NDPS Act — Bail — Quantity — Commercial vs non-commercial Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Ss. 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) — Bail — Contraband not commercial quantity — Rigour of Section 37 not attracted — Accused entitled to consideration under ordinary bail principles. Paras 3–4 Held, where the seized contraband is not a commercial quantity, the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not apply, and bail is to be considered on general principles governing grant of bail.

advocatemmmohan

NDPS Act — Bail — Quantity — Commercial vs non-commercial

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Ss. 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) — Bail — Contraband not commercial quantity — Rigour of Section 37 not attracted — Accused entitled to consideration under ordinary bail principles.
Paras 3–4

Held, where the seized contraband is not a commercial quantity, the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not apply, and bail is to be considered on general principles governing grant of bail.

Bail — Antecedents — Custody — Progress of investigation

Criminal Procedure — Bail — No criminal antecedents — Accused in custody for 18 days — Official witnesses already examined — No request for custodial interrogation — Bail justified.
Paras 3–4

Held, absence of adverse criminal antecedents, completion of examination of official and material witnesses, and lack of any request for custodial interrogation weigh in favour of granting bail.

Bail — Risk of absconding — Fixed abode — Conditions

Bail — Accused residents of another State — Fixed place of residence — Attendance conditions — Restriction on movement — Sufficient to secure presence and prevent evasion of law.
Paras 3, 5

Held, where the accused have a fixed abode and can be secured by stringent conditions, apprehension of absconding can be adequately addressed by imposing appropriate restrictions.

Bail — Tampering with evidence — Threat to witnesses

Bail — Apprehension of witness tampering — Official witnesses — No material to suggest interference — Conditions imposed to safeguard prosecution.
Paras 3, 5

Held, in the absence of material showing likelihood of threat or inducement to witnesses, bail cannot be denied merely on speculative apprehension, particularly when conditions are imposed.

II. FACTS (AS RECORDED BY THE COURT)

The Criminal Petition was filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking bail for Accused Nos.1 and 2 (Para 1).
Crime No.416 of 2025 of Visakhapatnam Police Station, G.R.P. Vijayawada, was registered for offences under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act (Para 1).
The allegation against the petitioners was that they allegedly transported 8.00 kgs of ganja, and were arrested on the spot on 29.11.2025 (Para 3).
The seized quantity was not a commercial quantity (Para 3).
The petitioners have no criminal antecedents, are residents of Murshidabad, Jalangi, West Bengal, and have a fixed place of residence (Para 3).
The petitioners were in judicial custody for 18 days, and seven official and material witnesses had already been examined (Para 3).
No application was filed by the prosecution seeking custodial interrogation (Para 3).

III. ANALYSIS OF LAW AND APPLICATION

(As undertaken by the High Court)

A. Applicability of NDPS Bail Restrictions

The Court expressly noted that the seized contraband did not constitute commercial quantity, thereby removing the statutory bar ordinarily applicable under the NDPS regime (Para 3). Bail was thus examined on general criminal law principles.

B. Custodial Necessity and Investigation Status

The Court placed weight on the fact that the petitioners had already undergone 18 days of judicial custody, seven witnesses had been examined, and the prosecution did not seek further custodial interrogation (Para 3). Continued incarceration was therefore found unnecessary.

C. Risk Assessment

Despite the petitioners being residents of another State, the Court found that their fixed abode and the feasibility of imposing stringent conditions sufficiently mitigated the risk of absconding (Para 3).

D. Protection of Prosecution Interest

The Court considered the apprehension of witness tampering and concluded that such concerns could be addressed by imposing restrictive and supervisory conditions, rather than denying bail outright (Paras 3–5).

IV. RESULT

The Criminal Petition was allowed, and the petitioners were enlarged on bail subject to stringent conditions, including:

• Execution of bond and sureties
• Weekly appearance before the Station House Officer
• Restriction on leaving district limits
• Non-interference with investigation and witnesses

(Para 5)

V. OPINION

(Reasoned, doctrinal)

The order reflects a balanced application of NDPS jurisprudence, correctly distinguishing between commercial and non-commercial quantity cases.
The emphasis on progress of investigation and absence of custodial necessity aligns with settled bail principles.
The Court effectively reconciles the stringency of narcotics law with personal liberty, by imposing proportionate safeguards instead of mechanical denial of bail.
The order is a useful precedent on bail under the NDPS Act post-BNSS, especially where investigation has substantially progressed.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN