NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial quantity – Rigour of Section 37 Where the offences alleged involve commercial quantity of ganja, the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act squarely applies, and bail cannot be granted unless the twin conditions prescribed therein are satisfied. (Paras 7–9)

advocatemmmohan

1. NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial quantity – Rigour of Section 37

Where the offences alleged involve commercial quantity of ganja, the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act squarely applies, and bail cannot be granted unless the twin conditions prescribed therein are satisfied.
(Paras 7–9)

---

2. NDPS Act – Bail – Multiple cases – Habitual involvement

Registration of multiple NDPS cases against the same accused involving large quantities of contraband is a relevant factor indicating habitual involvement and militates against grant of bail.
(Paras 5, 8)

---

3. NDPS Act – Confessional statements of co-accused – Prima facie involvement

At the stage of bail, confessional statements of co-accused disclosing the role of the petitioner, coupled with recovery of commercial quantity, constitute prima facie material sufficient to deny bail.
(Para 7)

---

4. NDPS Act – Bail – Courier-based trafficking – Organised activity

Allegations of transporting ganja through courier services to different States, involving organised modus operandi, reflect the seriousness of the offence and weigh heavily against grant of bail.
(Paras 5, 8)

---

5. NDPS Act – Bail – Statutory remand period

Where the statutory period of 180 days’ judicial remand under the NDPS Act has not expired, the accused is not entitled to bail on the ground of prolonged custody.
(Para 9)

---

6. NDPS Act – Bail – “Reasonable grounds” – Meaning

The expression “reasonable grounds” under Section 37 requires substantial probable cause for believing that the accused is not guilty, and not mere prima facie satisfaction.
(Paras 12–13)

---

7. NDPS Act – Societal impact – Strict approach to bail

Narcotic offences, by their nature, have a devastating societal impact, and courts must strictly adhere to the legislative mandate while considering bail.
(Paras 10–12)

---

8. NDPS Act – Bail – Failure to satisfy twin conditions

In the absence of material enabling the Court to record satisfaction that the accused is not guilty and not likely to commit an offence while on bail, bail must be refused.
(Para 13)

---

ANALYSIS

Nature of the Cases

The two bail petitions arose from two separate crimes involving the same petitioner, both registered under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) read with 8(c) of the NDPS Act, i.e., offences involving commercial quantity of ganja.

• Crime No.302 of 2024:
  Recovery of 90 kgs of ganja from the house of co-accused; petitioner implicated through confessional statements alleging transportation of ganja via courier packets.

• Crime No.306 of 2024:
  Allegation of organised trafficking of 192 kgs of ganja through DTDC courier services to Delhi; additional reference to another NDPS case registered by Delhi Police involving 60 kgs of ganja.

Stage of Investigation and Custody

The Court noted:

• The petitioner was in custody for 90 days in one case and 154 days in the other,

• The statutory period of 180 days had not expired,

• Investigation was at a crucial stage, involving tracing of courier links and inter-State trafficking.

Application of Section 37 NDPS Act

The Court emphasised that:

• Both cases involved commercial quantity,

• Section 37 creates a non obstante bar overriding general bail principles,

• Bail can be granted only if both conditions are satisfied:

  1. Reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty, and

  2. Likelihood that he will not commit an offence while on bail.

The Court found that neither condition was satisfied.

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents

The Court relied upon:

• Union of India v. Ram Samujh – highlighting the gravity and societal harm of narcotics offences,

• Durand Didier v. State of Goa – emphasising Parliament’s intent for stringent control,

• State of Kerala v. Rajesh – clarifying the mandatory nature and interpretation of Section 37.

Conclusion on Merits

Given:

• Commercial quantity,

• Multiple NDPS cases,

• Organised modus operandi,

• Pending statutory remand period, and

• Absence of reasonable grounds of innocence,

the Court held that the petitions lacked merit.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

In cases under the NDPS Act involving commercial quantity, particularly where the accused is allegedly involved in organised and repeated trafficking activities and the statutory remand period has not expired, bail must be refused unless the Court records a clear satisfaction, based on substantial material, that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit further offences; failure to satisfy these twin conditions under Section 37 mandates rejection of bail.