BAIL ON NDPS ACT

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 21,29,42------PETITION FOR

BAIL

The petitioner sought regular bail in a case registered under Sections 21

and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS
Act). The case involved the recovery of 15 bottles of Codeine
Phosphate, a prohibited drug under the NDPS Act, from a vehicle in
which the petitioner was an occupant. The prosecution alleged that the
petitioner and another occupant of the vehicle had purchased the bottles
from a medical store and were transporting them to another person. The
petitioner had previously filed bail petitions, which were dismissed, and
this bail petition was primarily based on the delay in trial. The
prosecution opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioner did not
meet the conditions outlined in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which
makes it difficult to secure bail in cases involving commercial
quantities of contraband. The court acknowledged that the quantity
of contraband involved in the case was commercial, and the
conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were applicable. The
court cited precedent cases to clarify the meaning of "reasonable
grounds" in Section 37 and noted that it required something more than
prima facie evidence to believe the accused is not guilty of the offense.
The court recognized that prolonged incarceration could violate the
fundamental right of liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court considered the slow pace of the trial and the fact that the co-
accused had been granted bail as factors in favor of granting bail to the
petitioner. The court ordered the petitioner to be released on bail with
specific conditions, including cooperation with the investigation and
attendance at trial, and warned that any violation of these conditions
could result in bail cancellation.

Decided On: 13.10.2023

Mandeep Singh vs State Of H.P on 13 October, 2023;

Himachal Pradesh High Court

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 22------ SEC 439 CRPC

The petitioner sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) in a case registered under Section 22 of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) in the
Nalagarh Police Station, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The case
involved the petitioner's arrest for possession of 2220 tablets of Lomotil,
quantified as 142.8 grams, which were found in his carry bag. The
tablets contained Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride, a prohibited drug under
the NDPS Act. The petitioner argued that, despite being in detention for
over two years and four months, only two out of 24 prosecution
witnesses had been examined, with no likelihood of a near-future trial
completion. Due to this prolonged detention, the petitioner sought bail.
The petitioner's counsel referred to several Supreme Court and High
Court orders where bail was granted to accused individuals in NDPS
cases, citing delays in trials and extended periods of custody. The
learned Additional Advocate General opposed bail, arguing that the
nature of the crime, involving drug-related offenses, was heinous and
damaging to individuals, families, society, and the nation, and therefore,
the petitioner was not entitled to bail. The court, without commenting on
the merits of the case, took into consideration the period of detention,
the stage of the trial, and various factors and parameters outlined in the
cited Supreme Court and High Court orders. The court held that the
petitioner should be granted bail in the current case. The petitioner was
directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 along with two
sureties of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court or
Special Judge. The court could also impose additional conditions as
necessary to assure the petitioner's presence at the trial. The conditions
of bail included requirements for the petitioner to make himself
available to the police or investigating agencies, not influence
witnesses, not obstruct the investigation or trial, not commit similar
offenses, and not misuse his liberty. The petitioner was also required to
inform the police or court of any changes in contact information and was
not allowed to leave the territory of India without prior permission. The
prosecution had the right to apply for the imposition of additional
conditions, and if the petitioner violated any conditions, the bail could
be canceled. The court emphasized that its observations in the judgment
did not affect the merits of the case and were solely for the purpose of
disposing of the bail application.

Date Of Decision: October 13

Hanif vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 13 October, 2023, Himachal

Pradesh High Court

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 22------ BAIL UNDER SEC 439
CRPC

The petitioner in this case has sought bail under Section 439 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure in relation to a case registered under the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The
petitioner was found in possession of a significant quantity of prohibited
drugs, and he has been in custody as an undertrial prisoner for over two
years. The petitioner's counsel has argued that due to the slow
progress of the trial and the considerable time spent in custody, the
petitioner should be granted bail. The counsel has cited various
Supreme Court and High Court judgments in support of this argument,
where individuals in similar situations were granted bail. In response,
the Additional Advocate General argued that the petitioner is accused of
a grave crime that harms both individuals and society, and thus should
not be granted bail. The court has considered the arguments and the
precedent set by previous cases. It has decided to grant bail to the
petitioner, taking into account the period of detention, the stage of the
trial, and the likelihood of further delays. The court has imposed various
conditions on the petitioner to ensure his presence during the trial, and it
has also noted that if the petitioner violates these conditions, his bail
may be canceled. The trial court is directed to comply with the court's
instructions, and the observations made in this judgment do not affect
the merits of the case.

Date Of Decision: October 13

Raj Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 13 October, 2023,

Himachal Pradesh High Court

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 20,29,61,85------ REGULAR BAIL

A secret tip-off was received about the illegal supply of Ganja, leading
to a raid. During the raid, three individuals (Vinod, Iqbal, and Sheela)
were apprehended in a three-wheeler, with two bags found between the
two passengers. The bags were seized and found to contain Ganja upon
testing. Charges were framed against all three accused under Section
20(C) of the NDPS Act for a commercial quantity offense. Sheela
applied for bail, arguing that the quantity of Ganja found in her
possession was intermediate and should not be combined with the
commercial quantity found with Vinod. Sheela also raised concerns
about the delay in filing an application under Section 52A of the
NDPS Act. Iqbal sought bail on the grounds that no drugs were
recovered from him, and a Section 50 search was not conducted. The
prosecution contended that all three accused were part of a conspiracy,
as evidenced by phone records and joint recovery of contraband.

The judge made the following rulings:

The quantity of Ganja found was to be considered as a total, and not

separately for each accused, as they were traveling together in the same
vehicle. The delay in filing the application under Section 52A was not
sufficient by itself to grant bail. Section 50 of the NDPS Act did not
apply to Iqbal since no drugs were recovered from his person. As a
result of these findings, the bail applications were dismissed. Sheela was
ordered to surrender within one week. The judge emphasized that
these observations were solely for the purpose of adjudicating the
bail applications and should not be construed as judgments on the
merits of the case.

Sheela vs State Govt. Of Nct of Delhi on 11 October, 2023;

Delhi High Court

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 20,29------ BAIL UNDER SEC 439
CRPC
In this case, the petitioners sought bail in a case registered under
Sections 20 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The key points and observations from the court's
decision are as follows:

Background: The case pertained to the recovery of cannabis/charas

from the petitioners, and they were arrested on 05.07.2021.

Lengthy Incarceration: The petitioners had been in judicial custody for

more than 1½ years.

Speedy Trial and Right to Bail: The court recognized that Article 21 of
the Constitution of India guarantees the right to a speedy trial and noted
that under-trial prisoners cannot be detained indefinitely. It cited several
Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the importance of speedy trials
and the right to bail, especially when trial delays are anticipated.

Court's Decision: The court exercised its judicial discretion and

granted bail to the petitioners, taking into account the length of time
they had spent in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being
completed in the near future. It noted that the prosecution had not
produced any evidence suggesting that the petitioners might tamper with
evidence or abscond. The court-imposed conditions on the bail,
including regular attendance at trial, non-interference with witnesses, no
repetition of the alleged offense, and not leaving India without court
permission.
Clarification: The court clarified that its order to grant bail did not
express an opinion on the merits of the case and that the trial court
should not be influenced by the observations made in the bail order.

This case underscores the importance of the right to a speedy trial and
how prolonged pre-trial incarceration, especially in cases involving
NDPS Act, can lead to the grant of bail despite stringent legal
provisions. It also highlights that bail can be granted based on the
specific circumstances of each case, where the court balances the rights
of the accused with the interests of justice.

Karam Singh vs State Of H.P on 11 October, 2023;

Himachal Pradesh High Court

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 8,22,28,23,29------ BAIL UNDER

SEC 439 CRPC

The present application is a request for regular bail filed under Section
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant is seeking
bail in connection with an offense registered with the Narcotic Control
Bureau (NCB) for violations under various sections of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The charges relate to the
recovery of 500 kg of TRAMADOL Powder, which was mis declared as
"SILDENAFIL MICRO GRANULES B.P. 90%" and was being
illegally smuggled out of India in a container. The NCB received
specific information on June 22, 2023, leading to a raid that resulted in
the seizure of 500 kg of TRAMADOL Powder concealed as another
substance. The applicant was issued a notice under section 67(C) of the
NDPS Act and subsequently produced before the Magistrate. The
investigation suggests the applicant's involvement in the illegal
transportation of the contraband. The applicant, who is a director of a
pharmaceutical company, argued that the company had a valid license
for the manufacture and sale of up to 500 kg of tramadol powder. He
claimed that the misdeclaration of the transported substance was
inadvertent and should not constitute an offense under the NDPS Act.
The applicant also asserted deep roots in society and the willingness to
cooperate with the investigation. The NCB opposed the bail application,
emphasizing that the investigation was in its initial stages, the accused
was involved in a serious offense involving a commercial quantity of
contraband, and there was a risk of tampering with evidence or
influencing witnesses. The court referred to relevant Supreme Court
judgments, including one that highlighted the mandatory conditions
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for granting bail. It emphasized
the need for reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and
the absence of a likelihood of committing further offenses while on bail.
The court found that reasonable grounds existed for believing that
the accused was guilty of the offense and that there was a possibility
of the accused committing further offenses or tampering with
evidence. Given the seriousness of the offense and the risks involved,
the court decided not to grant bail to the applicant.

Rohit Madariya S/O Shri Vallabh ... vs State of Gujarat on 10

October, 2023;

Gujarat High Court

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 8,20,42------ BAIL UNDER SEC

439 CRPC

The accused has applied for bail in a case involving charges under the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The applicant claims
that he has been falsely implicated, and the prosecution's case is weak.
They argue that the search and arrest did not comply with Section 42 of
the N.D.P.S. Act, and there are no reliable public witnesses. The court
notes that similarly situated co-accused have been granted bail by both a
Coordinate Bench of this Court and this Court. The accused has been in
jail since a certain date, and his criminal history is limited. The court
acknowledges that records of a past case are not available due to being
weeded out by the trial court. The court reviews the circumstances of the
case and the recovery of a substantial quantity of ganja. The court cites a
previous bail order for a co-accused, indicating that the circumstances in
the applicant's case are similar. The court considers various conditions
for granting bail, such as the presence of the accused during trial,
compliance with legal procedures, and the absence of a criminal history.
The court highlights that observations made in the bail order are for the
purpose of this bail application and do not constitute an expression of
the merits of the case.

Shafeek Ahmed vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 9 October,

2023;

Allahabad High Court

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 20------ BAIL UNDER SEC 439
CRPC

The prosecution's account states that on a specific date, a police patrol

stopped a bus, and during an inspection of the bus, the police found a
woman (the petitioner) sitting in a seat with a bag. Upon searching her
bag, they found sealed packets containing a black substance believed to
be charas/cannabis, totaling 2.412 kilograms. The petitioner has applied
for bail, claiming innocence and that she has been falsely accused. The
court has considered the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel
and the opposition from the Additional Advocate General. The court
emphasizes that due to the substantial quantity of charas/cannabis (2.412
kgs), which falls under the commercial quantity category, the
provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply. This section makes it
difficult to secure bail for offenses involving commercial quantities. The
court cites a Supreme Court case that underscores the limitations on
granting bail for offenses involving commercial quantities under the
NDPS Act. The court concludes that unless the conditions specified
in Section 37 of the NDPS Act are met, bail cannot be granted in
cases involving commercial quantities of contraband. The petitioner's
arguments regarding alleged non-compliance with Section 52(A) of the
NDPS Act and missing link evidence are noted but not addressed in the
bail application as they can be examined during the trial. The petitioner's
request for bail due to a delay in the trial is also rejected, but the trial
court is directed to conclude the trial by a specified date. The court
emphasizes that its decision does not imply a judgment on the merits of
the case, and the trial court should not be influenced by the observations
in this order. This primarily deals with the denial of bail to the petitioner
based on the quantity of contraband and the provisions of the NDPS Act.
The court also sets a deadline for the trial to ensure a speedy resolution
of the case.

Olga Varshokova vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 7 October, 2023;

Himachal Pradesh High Court

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 8(c),20(b)(ii) A, 21(c), 22(b)(c), 23(a)
(b), 27, 27A, 28 AND 29 ------ BAIL UNDER SEC 439 CRPC

A case was registered against accused Nos. 1 to 3 by the Narcotics

Control Bureau (NCB) for the seizure of drugs like Ganja, Cocaine, and
Hashish on December 28, 2022.The petitioner was later apprehended on
January 5, 2023, in Goa, with a significant quantity of various drugs in
his possession, including commercial quantities of some substances. The
petitioner was arraigned as accused No. 4 in the same case. The
petitioner had previously applied for bail in the Court of the XXXIII
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS),
Bengaluru, but the application was rejected on February 13, 2023.The
petitioner's counsel argues that there has been non-compliance with
Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which deals with search and seizure
procedures. The drugs were seized from a pouch in the petitioner's
possession. The council also notes that accused Nos. 1 to 3, from whom
commercial quantities of drugs were seized, have been granted bail even
before the charge sheet was filed. The prosecution opposes the bail
application based on Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, which
restricts bail for offenses involving commercial quantities of drugs.
However, they do not dispute the non-compliance with Section 50 of
the NDPS Act. This provides details of the investigation and seizure of
drugs, highlighting the absence of Section 50 compliance during the
petitioner's apprehension in Goethe court emphasizes the need for strict
compliance with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act by
investigating officers and holds them accountable for lapses. Accused
Nos. 1 to 3 have already been granted bail, and the investigation is
complete, with the charge sheet filed. The court, taking into account the
non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, grants bail to the
petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

Sri Krai Michel vs Union of India on 6 October, 2023;

Karnataka High Court

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 37,27,24 ------ BAIL UNDER SEC
439 CRPC

The case involves a situation where a taxi (bearing registration number

PB01B-9156) broke down near Jari, and the petitioner, Hardik Chawla,
was to be transported by the driver to his destination for a fare of ₹4200.
However, the vehicle was stopped for checking on the Kulluk-Mandi
Highway, and a bag containing 4.234 kgs of Charas was recovered. The
petitioner maintained his innocence and claimed he was only a
passenger, not involved in the drug possession. The investigating officer
recorded a conversation between the petitioner and the owner of the
vehicle, Gurumukhi Singh, who vouched for the petitioner's innocence.
The petitioner's parents obtained the recording from the court,
suggesting it as evidence of his innocence. They argued that their son
was falsely implicated, and his future would be ruined if he remained in
custody. The opposition's case was built on the fact that the petitioner
was found in the vehicle with the contraband, he had made repeated
phone calls to both Gurumukh Singh and Mangat Muhammad, and that
there was no concrete proof that the contraband was planted without his
knowledge. The court referred to the principles governing bail and noted
that the accused must demonstrate reasonable grounds for believing in
their innocence and show they are unlikely to commit further offenses
while on bail. The court cited the provision of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act, which restricts bail for those accused of offenses
involving commercial quantities of narcotics unless it is shown that
they are not guilty and unlikely to commit offenses on bail. The court
found that the evidence did not support the petitioner's claim of
innocence. The petitioner's repeated calls to the driver and owner of the
vehicle, his presence with the contraband, and his attempt to hand over
the bag to the driver indicated conscious possession. The court
dismissed the bail petition and made it clear that its observations were
related to the bail application and would not affect the merits of the case.

Hardik Chawda vs State Of H.P on 6 October, 2023

Himachal Pradesh High Court

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 21,29 ------ BAIL UNDER SEC 439
R/W 167 CRPC

The petitioner's arrest and remand in connection with a narcotics case. A

previous rejection of the petitioner's bail application based on the
interpretation of the statutory period for default bail. The petitioner's
reliance on a recent Supreme Court judgment (Enforcement Directorate
vs. Kapil Wadhawan and another) regarding the computation of the
remand period. Arguments related to the petitioner's right to default bail
based on the delay in filing the charge-sheet and the extended
investigation period. Reference to other Supreme Court judgments
concerning undue delay in trial and prolonged incarceration of accused
individuals in narcotics cases. The court's observation that the
conditions of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act can be dispensed
with considering the petitioner's prolonged incarceration without
the commencement of the trial. It appears that the court is inclined to
grant bail to the petitioner based on the provided arguments and the
circumstances of the case, subject to conditions to be determined by the
1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge under the NDPS Act.

Manoranjan Das vs State of Odisha on 4 October, 2023;

Orissa High Court

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 20,37 ------

The petitioners in the case are co-accused in FIR No. 379/2019,
registered under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act (NDPS Act). The petitioners were arrested on December
28, 2019, with a significant quantity of cannabis. The petitioners have
sought regular bail, primarily due to the delay in their trial, having spent
approximately 3 years and 10 months in custody. The prosecution
emphasizes the large quantity of contraband involved, leading to the
application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which makes it challenging
for the petitioners to obtain bail. The court considers the requirement
for reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and
that they are unlikely to commit further offenses while on bail, as
specified in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court acknowledges the
slow pace of the trial, significant time spent by the petitioners in
custody, and the absence of a criminal record for the petitioners, making
a case for their release on bail. Bail is granted to the petitioners with
specific conditions, such as cooperating with the investigation, not
tampering with evidence, and appearing in court for all hearings. The
court makes it clear that any future violations of the bail terms could
lead to bail cancellation. The court's observations in this document
are not a judgment on the merits of the case but pertain to the bail
application.

Shreya Thapa Magar vs State Of H.P on 29 September, 2023

; Himachal Pradesh High Court

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 20------ BAIL

The incident leading to the arrest of the petitioner occurred on December

7, 2019, when a police patrol noticed two pedestrians, one carrying a
backpack, in an area within their jurisdiction. The individual carrying
the backpack, identified as Hariya (the bail petitioner), discarded it on
the roadside upon seeing the police and retraced his steps with his
companion, Purshottam’s police detained both Hariya and Purshottam,
retrieved the discarded backpack, and conducted a legal search, leading
to the recovery of 1.572 kgs of cannabis. The recovery of the cannabis
resulted in the registration of FIR No. 379/2019 under the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), and the
subsequent arrest of Hariya and Purshottam’s of the status report, out of
the total of 22 witnesses, statements of 15 witnesses have been recorded
in the case, and the trial is scheduled for the statements of three more
witnesses on October 19, 2023.The petitioner's counsel argued that
Hariya was falsely implicated, with no legal evidence connecting him to
the alleged offense, and that independent witnesses did not support the
prosecution's case. The prosecution invoked Section 37 of the NDPS
Act due to the recovery of a commercial quantity of contraband,
making bail challenging to obtain. The petitioner had spent nearly four
years in custody, had no prior criminal history according to the status
report, and the trial was proceeding at a slow pace. The court,
considering various precedents, particularly the need for "reasonable
grounds" to believe in the petitioner's potential innocence, granted bail
to the petitioner, setting specific conditions. The court emphasized that
the petitioner's bail should not influence the independent witnesses since
their statements had already been recorded. The court stressed the
petitioner's right to a fair and timely trial and the potential violation
of fundamental rights due to prolonged incarceration. The court's
observations in the document are specific to the bail application and
do not constitute a judgment on the merits of the case.

Hariya vs State Of H.P on 28 September, 2023;

Himachal Pradesh High Court

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 8,15,29 ------ BAIL UNDER SEC
439 CRPC

The applicants were arrested in connection with a case registered under

Sections 8/15 and 29 of the NDPS Act, related to the smuggling and
trafficking of poppy straw. The prosecution's case was based on secret
information regarding the applicants' alleged involvement in the illegal
activities. A raid was conducted at the residence and go down of one of
the accused, where a substantial quantity of poppy straw and related
equipment were found. The accused were arrested and their
statements were recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which
were being used as evidence against them. The applicants claimed
they were falsely implicated in the case, as they were not present at the
scene, and no contraband was found in their possession. The court
referred to relevant case law, including the prohibition on using
confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act
as evidence. The court cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that
bail should not be granted to individuals accused of offenses involving a
commercial quantity of narcotics unless there are reasonable grounds to
believe they are not guilty and will not commit further offenses while on
bail. Considering the legal principles and the specific circumstances of
the case, the court concluded that this was not a suitable case for
granting bail. The court rejected the bail applications filed by the
applicants.

Pappu @ Gopal Krishna vs Union of India on 27 September, 2023;

Madhya Pradesh High Court

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 8,22,50------ BAIL

The case involves the arrest of the applicant on September 17, 2021,
after receiving secret information about an individual carrying
contraband cough syrup (Codeine and Chlorpheniramine) near
Ghatkopar Man Khurd link road. The accused was apprehended carrying
200 bottles of cough syrup with Codeine and Chlorpheniramine. This
syrup was found to be contraband under the NDPS Act. The applicant
disclosed during police custody that a substantial quantity of cough
syrup was hidden in a shop he had rented, leading to the recovery of
7,700 bottles of contraband syrup in the shop. The applicant's argument
for bail is primarily based on the non-compliance of Section 52A of the
NDPS Act, which deals with the procedure for drawing samples,
storage, and disposal of seized substances. The defense claims that
non-compliance with Section 52A raises doubts about the
prosecution's case, justifying bail. The court's decision hinges on
whether non-compliance with Section 52A automatically entitles the
applicant to bail. There is a difference of opinion within the court
regarding the significance of drawing samples on the spot and sending
them for chemical analysis in the context of bail applications. The court
ultimately holds that non-compliance with Section 52A does not
automatically entitle the applicant to bail. The prosecution can still
establish its case through other evidence, depending on the scenario. The
decision on bail should be based on whether reasonable grounds exist to
believe the accused is not guilty and won't commit further offenses while
on bail. The court rejects the applicant's argument that there is a
breach of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act, indicating that it does
not find any merit in these claims. As a result, the court rejects the
bail application.
Mukesh Rajaram Chaudhari vs The State of Maharashtra on 27
September, 2023; Bombay High Court

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 22,25,29------ BAIL 439 R/W 482
CRPC

The State of Tripura filed an application under Section 439(2) read with
Section 482 Cr.P.C. to recall/cancel the order of bail granted to the
accused-respondents in connection with a Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act case. The grounds for seeking bail
cancellation include the alleged violation of procedural norms under the
NDPS Act during the bail process and the claim that the accused-
respondents are habitual offenders involved in the illicit drug trade. The
Additional Public Prosecutor argued that bail in NDPS and UAPA
(Unlawful Activities Prevention Act) cases should be the exception
rather than the rule and that the special judge should not disregard
the limitations stipulated in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court
highlighted the importance of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which
sets out limitations on granting bail, including the requirement that
the Public Prosecutor be given an opportunity to oppose the bail
application and that there should be reasonable grounds to believe
that the accused is not guilty and will not commit further offenses
while on bail. The court emphasized that, when granting bail, the
special judge should not act as if pronouncing a judgment of acquittal
but should consider whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that
the accused is not guilty of the alleged offense. The court cited a
Supreme Court case (Union of India vs. Md. Nawaz Khan) that
explained the standards for granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS
Act, which involves a reasonable ground to believe the accused is not
guilty and will not commit offenses while on bail. The court referenced
other relevant cases to reinforce the importance of Section 37 in NDPS
Act cases, emphasizing that stringent parameters are in place to control
and regulate the grant of bail in such cases. The court found that the
special judge had erroneously released the accused-respondents on
bail without properly considering the two conditions outlined in
Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It was noted that two of the accused-
respondents had allegedly abused their liberty by being involved in other
criminal cases during the period of bail.

The State of Tripura vs Sri Mahabala Alam on 27 September, 2023;

Tripura High Court

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 21,29------ BAIL 439 CRPC, SEC 14
FOREIGNERS ACT

The applicant filed a bail application in a case registered under FIR No.
131/2018 under Section 21/29 of the NDPS Act and Section 14 of the
Foreigners Act at PS Special Cell. The prosecution's case is that the
applicant and a co-accused named Surjeet were apprehended on
23.10.2018, and both were found in possession of polythene bags
containing brown-colored powder, which tested positive for 'heroin.' A
total of 4 kg of contraband was recovered from the applicant. The
applicant has been in judicial custody for nearly five years since the
arrest in 2018.The applicant's counsel argued that prolonged
incarceration of an undertrial prisoner is a valid ground for granting bail,
citing several judgments to support this claim. The State's counsel
opposed the bail application, noting that 4 kg of heroin, a commercial
quantity, was recovered from the applicant, and thus the conditions in
Section 37 of the NDPS Act should be satisfied for bail. The court cited
the recent Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb,
which emphasized the importance of a timely trial, access to justice, and
the right to a speedy trial. The court clarified that statutory restrictions
do not exclude the discretion of constitutional courts to grant bail on
grounds of violating fundamental rights. The court also referred to the
judgment in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Orissa, where it was held
that prolonged incarceration could override statutory restrictions under
the NDPS Act. The applicant had been in custody for nearly five years,
and the trial had only progressed with the examination of a limited
number of witnesses, indicating that the trial might take a considerable
amount of time. Given the circumstances, the court allowed the bail
application, with specific conditions for the applicant's release. The
court-imposed conditions such as depositing the passport, weekly
reporting to the police, not leaving India without court permission,
notifying any change in residential address, appearing before the court,
maintaining an operational mobile number, and not interfering with the
investigation. The court stated that the bail would be canceled
immediately if any of these conditions were violated or if a case for
cancellation of bail was otherwise established.

The bail application was allowed, and the matter was disposed of.

Oscar Enyi vs State Nct of Delhi on 26 September, 2023;

Delhi High Court -

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 8,20,29------

Case Overview:

The petitioner has sought regular bail in connection with N.D.P.S. Case
No. 06 of 2018, which involves offenses under Sections 8, 20, and 29 of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Previous Bail Attempt:

This is the petitioner's second attempt at seeking bail. The previous bail
request was denied due to the recovery of 517 kg of Ganja from a
vehicle, which the petitioner was driving.
The court had ordered the trial court to expedite the trial and conclude it
within six months.

Current Status of the Trial:

Despite the court's earlier directive, more than one year and four months
have passed, and the trial has not yet concluded.

The trial is likely to be completed within nine months once the Presiding
Officer arrives.

Petitioner's Argument:

The petitioner, who worked as a driver, claims he was unaware of the

contents of the sealed packets in the vehicle.

The co-accused, escorting the petitioner's vehicle, was granted bail

earlier.

The petitioner has been in custody for over five years and five months,
and the trial is not likely to conclude soon, which affects his personal
liberty.

Opposition by Union of India:

The Union of India opposes the bail application, citing the recovery of a
substantial quantity of Ganja from the petitioner's vehicle.

Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the evidence suggest the petitioner's
complicity in the offense.
The petitioner had admitted his involvement in the crime.

Speedy Trial and Personal Liberty:

Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring a speedy trial is

inconsistent with Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Timely delivery of justice is a part of human rights, and denial of speedy

justice threatens public confidence in the administration of justice.

Rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act:

Section 37 specifies that a person accused of an offense punishable by

imprisonment of five years or more shall not be released on bail unless
certain conditions are met.

The Supreme Court has emphasized that a liberal approach should not be
adopted in such cases.

Decision:

Considering the petitioner's prolonged incarceration and the likelihood

that the trial will not conclude in the near future, the court grants the
petitioner bail.

The petitioner is to furnish bail bonds of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties to
the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bursaria,
subject to specified conditions.

Kajal Sarkar vs The State of Bihar on 22 September, 2023

; Patna High Court - Orders

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 8,20,29------ BAIL 439 CRPC

Case Overview:

The applicant has filed an application under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking bail.

The applicant is accused of an offense under Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C),

and Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985.

Seizure of Chara’s:

The Narcotics Control Bureau, Ahmedabad Unit, conducted a search

near Adalaj Toll Plaza in a Traveller Bus.

During the search, 6.359 Kgs of Chara’s, considered a commercial

quantity, was seized from the joint possession of the applicant and a co-
accused from a red-coloured bag.

Both were arrested after failing to account for the contraband.

Applicant's Arguments:

The applicant's counsel argues that the seizure Panchama lacks details,
and it cannot be presumed that the Chara’s was found in the possession
of the accused.
The Panchama does not specify the berth or seat numbers of the accused
or offer them the presence of a Gazetted Officer during the search.

The delay in recording statements, the absence of seized travel tickets,

and other details create doubt about the prosecution's genuineness.

Prosecution's Arguments:

The prosecution argues that all required procedures under the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act were followed.

Since there was no search of a person, Section 50 of "the Act" did not
apply.

The applicant's previous conviction and sentence related to the same Act
suggest he should not be granted bail.

Bail Rejection:

The court finds that the seizure of a commercial quantity of Chara’s

from the joint possession of the applicant and the co-accused suggests
their guilt under "the Act." The absence of certain details in the seizure
Panchama does not invalidate the presumption of guilt. The court
rejects the application for bail, citing the seriousness of the offense
and the presumption of a 'culpable mental state.'

Muhammad Tayyab Shaikh S/O ... vs Union of India on 22

September, 2023

; Gujarat High Court

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 15,18,61,85------ BAIL 439 CRPC

The petitioner, who has a criminal history, sought bail, arguing that pre-
trial incarceration would cause irreversible injustice to them and their
family. The state opposed the bail, citing the quantity of contraband
involved as falling into the commercial category and the petitioner's
criminal past, suggesting a likelihood of further criminal activity upon
release. The court referred to a previous case, "Paramjeet Singh v. State
of Punjab," emphasizing the importance of considering the criminal
history of the accused when granting bail. The court noted that there
were no grounds to assure that the petitioner, given their criminal
history, would not engage in criminal behavior if released on bail. The
petitioner argued for bail based on parity with a co-accused who had
been granted bail earlier. However, the court pointed out that the
petitioner had a substantial criminal history, unlike the co-accused who
had been granted bail. The court observed that the quantity of
contraband involved in the case was categorized as commercial,
subjecting the case to the rigors of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The burden was on the
petitioner to satisfy the conditions set by Section 37 of the NDPS
Act. The petitioner claimed that they were entitled to bail due to the
non-examination of independent witnesses. The court noted that this
argument would be relevant only if the petitioner could prove that the
police deliberately avoided involving independent witnesses. Citing the
Supreme Court case "State of Punjab v Baldev Singh," the court
explained that the quantity being marginally above the commercial
amount rendered the question of bail irrelevant, as per the NDPS Act.
The petitioner's argument regarding alleged violations of sections 42 and
50 of the NDPS Act during search and seizure was rejected. The court
held that whether such violations had occurred or not would be
determined during the trial. The court recommended that the trial court
expedite the case, aiming to conclude it by December 31, 2023, with the
prosecution evidence to be completed by October 31, 2023. The court
requested that the remaining time be dedicated to providing the
petitioner with an opportunity to present their defense evidence. The
court emphasized that this recommendation was subject to the condition
that neither the petitioner nor the accused would seek adjournments or
employ tactics to delay the trial. If they did so, the court could
automatically recall the order to expedite the trial. The court clarified
that any accused who was out on bail and failed to attend the trial
without sufficient cause should be dealt with strictly but in
accordance with the law.

Santokh Singh @ Tola vs State of Punjab on 22 September, 2023;

Punjab-Haryana High Court

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 6,37------

The petitioner was detained under the Preventive Detention Act due to
his alleged involvement in three cases related to offenses under the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). The first
crime dated back to 2014, while the second occurred in 2015. In both
cases, the petitioner was acquitted or granted bail. The most recent crime
was in December 2020, involving a commercial quantity of narcotics,
and the petitioner had been in judicial custody since his arrest in
September 2021.The court dismissed the petitioner's argument that there
was inordinate delay between the last prejudicial activity and the
detention order. The court held that the delay was not excessive,
considering the circumstances of the case. The court cited a Supreme
Court case, "Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura," to emphasize
the importance of a live and proximate link between the grounds of
detention and the purpose of prevention of illegal activity. The court
stated that the delay in this case was not unreasonable. The petitioner
contended that the detaining authority did not consider his acquittal in a
previous case or his release on bail in another. The court referenced
"Ankit Ashok Jalan v. Union of India" to highlight that the consideration
for revocation of a detention order is limited to examining whether the
order conforms to the provisions of the law. The court ruled that the
petitioner's detention was not without sufficient reason, as he was still in
judicial custody for a recent crime involving a commercial quantity of
narcotics, and other pending cases indicated his involvement in
narcotics-related offenses. The court noted the presumption under
Section 6(b) that the officer making the order of detention did so
after having subjective satisfaction, and it declined to re-evaluate
the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.

Soji Sam David vs State of Kerala on 21 September, 2023;

Kerala High Court

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC-----22,27,29------ BAIL CRPC

In this case, the petitioner had applied for regular bail, arguing that there
was no evidence connecting him to the alleged crime apart from the
confession statement of the first accused. The petitioner contended that
since the confession statement was inadmissible in court under Section
67 of the NDPS Act, he should be granted bail without the
restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, even though the
quantity of the contraband was commercial. The prosecution,
however, argued that there was substantial evidence implicating the
petitioner, including a statement from his own brother that he had
transferred money to the first accused as directed by the petitioner. The
prosecution asserted that the petitioner was part of a conspiracy to deal
with the contraband. The court reviewed the case diary materials and the
final report. The court noted that the contraband was seized from the
first accused while he was transporting it. The first accused had given a
confession statement implicating the petitioner in arranging the
contraband and handing it over to another accused. Additionally, it was
revealed that the petitioner's brother had transferred money to the first
accused's account as per the petitioner's instructions. The court found
that the prosecution had provided evidence of a conspiracy involving all
the accused in the transportation of the contraband. The court referred
to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which restricts bail for offenses
involving commercial quantities of contraband. The court cited
precedents and held that both conditions mentioned in Section 37(1)(b)
(ii) must be met before bail can be granted: (1) that there are reasonable
grounds for believing the accused is not guilty, and (2) that the accused
will not commit any offense while on bail. The court acknowledged the
previous dismissal of the petitioner's bail application on the same
grounds and concluded that there was no new evidence or compelling
reason to revisit that decision. Consequently, the court dismissed the
petitioner's bail application, upholding the restrictions under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Muhammed Sija vs State of Kerala on 21 September, 2023

; Kerala High Court

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC-----22,21,25------ BAIL 438 CRPC

The petitioner in this case is seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered

under Sections 21(c), 22(c), and 25 of the NDPS (Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances) Act in Karnal, Haryana. The case involves the
recovery of Alprazolam tablets and MTP kits from the petitioner, who
was named by a co-accused in a disclosure statement. The prosecution's
case relies on the disclosure statement made by a co-accused,
implicating the petitioner. However, the petitioner contends that this
statement has little evidentiary value and, therefore, anticipatory bail
should be granted. The court considered the petitioner's arguments, but it
also noted the petitioner's criminal antecedents, including involvement in
other NDPS Act cases. The court cited several judgments, both at the
high court level and the Supreme Court, highlighting the significance of
disclosure statements and the need for custodial interrogation in cases
involving multiple FIRs and habitual offenders. Ultimately, the court
found that the petitioner's custodial interrogation was necessary to
aid the investigation and that the twin conditions under Section 37
of the NDPS Act (not having committed an offense and not likely to
commit an offense) were not met. Consequently, the court dismissed
the petition for anticipatory bail. In summary, the court denied
anticipatory bail to the petitioner based on the importance of
disclosure statements and the petitioner's previous involvement in NDPS
Act cases, which indicated a need for custodial interrogation to support
the investigation.

Mohammad Rayyan Ansari vs State of Haryana on 21 September,

2023;

Punjab-Haryana High Court

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC-----20,29------ BAIL 439 CRPC

This is a case in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, in which the

applicant, Maya Dass, has filed a petition for bail under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The applicant is seeking bail
while the trial is pending in a case registered under Sections 20 and 29
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) in
Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. The applicant claims that he was arrested
by the police on January 23, 2023, for the alleged NDPS Act violation.
He argues that the police case against him is false and highly
improbable. The investigation is said to be complete, and the report
under Section 173(2) of the CrPC has been filed. The applicant asserts
that he has deep roots in society and is willing to provide certain
undertakings if released on bail. The applicant had previously applied
for bail before the Special Judge, Hamartin, Bilaspur, but that
application was dismissed. The police have filed a status report stating
that on January 21, 2023, ASI Sanjeev Kumar, the investigating officer,
submitted a report to the police station. According to the report, the
police were on patrolling duty when they intercepted a car driven by the
applicant. The car was stopped and checked, and the driver appeared
reluctant to produce the required documents. The applicant's counsel
has requested that the application for bail be granted. The court will
consider the arguments presented by both parties before making a
decision on the bail application.

Maya Dass vs State Of H.P on 21 September, 2023;

Himachal Pradesh High Court

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 8 (c), 20(b)(ii)(A), 20 (b)(ii)(B),

21(b), 22(c), 23 & 2------ BAIL 439 CRPC

On 04.08.2021, the applicant was intercepted at the IGI Airport and

questioned by the NCB, Kolkata Zonal Unit regarding a case registered
in Kolkata. During the inquiry, the applicant revealed that he had
narcotics in his travel bag, leading to the recovery of 30 grams of Ganja
and 0.45 grams of Ecstasy (MDMA) on 04.08. 2021.A subsequent
search of the applicant's residence resulted in the recovery of 1 kg of
Ganja and INR Rs 15.5 lakhs on 05.08. 2021.The applicant mentioned
procuring drugs through a courier, delivered to the address of Accused
No. 2/Rahul Mishra. A search at Rahul Mishra's house in Faridabad led
to the recovery of 1.05 kgs of Ganja. The applicant disclosed another
friend, Accused No. 3/Aashray Pandey, who collected a drug parcel
from Rahul Mishra's house. Aashray Pandey was intercepted with 410
grams of Ganja in his possession. The applicant admitted involvement in
the drug trade and revealed ordering drugs through a contact named Ms.
Tareena Bhatnagar, paying Rs. 6 lakhs to Accused No. 4/Jasbir Singh
through bitcoins. He used the pseudonym "Optima’s Prime" on the
Telegram app and explained his modus operandi. Statements were
recorded from Rahul Mishra, Aashray Pandey, and others, leading to the
arrest of the applicant and co-accused. The NCB argued that the
applicant and co-accused were inextricably linked, and recoveries
from the co-accused should be attributed to the applicant. The court
determined that there was no evidence of criminal conspiracy between
the applicant and the co-accused. The recovery from Accused No.
3/Aashray Pandey was not linked to the applicant due to the absence of
relevant messages in their mobile phones. The court held that no
commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the
applicant, and he was not charged under certain sections of the
NDPS Actinons-compliance of statutory provisions was noted,
including a delay in filing the Section 52-A NDPS Act application.
The court found a procedural lapse and lack of explanation for the delay.
A discrepancy in the quantity of contraband recovered was identified,
with a difference between the seizure and sampling weights. The court
cited precedents emphasizing the importance of accurate recording of
weights and information. On-compliance with Section 41 and 42 of the
NDPS Act was noted due to delays in seeking search warrants and
obtaining proper authorization for the searches. The court referred to
cases that stressed the mandatory nature of these provisions. Unnatural
conduct by the NCB, such as the delayed search of the applicant's bag
and late-night searches of residences, was highlighted. The court
considered that these actions cast doubt on the recoveries. The court
concluded that there was a mis-joinder of charges, as the applicant
was not involved in a general conspiracy with other co-accused.

Asvathama Guhan @Sarvo vs Narcotics Control Bureau on 13

September, 2023

Delhi High Court Cites

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 8,22,61,85----------------BAIL 439

CRPC

The petitioner, Mukesh Kumar, has filed a bail application under Section
439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) seeking regular bail. He is
currently held in custody for almost two years in a case registered under
Section 8(C), 22-61-85 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic
Substances Act. The State has submitted a status report, and ASI
Sanjeev Chandel appeared with the relevant records for the case. On
November 10, 2021, the police received secret information that the
petitioner, who is a chemist, was involved in the illegal trade of
narcotics. They raided his shop, AAR M CURATIVES, and allegedly
found a significant quantity of prohibited drugs. As the petitioner
couldn't produce records related to the purchase and sale of these
prohibited drugs, an FIR was registered against him. The petitioner has
requested bail primarily on the grounds of inordinate delay in
concluding the trial. The petitioner's counsel argued that he was falsely
implicated and possessed a valid license under the Drugs and Cosmetics
Act to stock drugs. They pointed out that the forensic analysis report did
not conclusively indicate the quantity of narcotics in the recovered
drugs. The prosecution argued that the gravity of the offense justifies
denying bail, as they presented evidence suggesting the petitioner's
involvement in the illegal drug trade. The court acknowledged the
possession of a valid license by the petitioner to store the recovered
drugs but noted that he couldn't produce sales records. It was found that
there was no conclusive evidence to support the allegations that he was a
drug peddler. The court cited a previous judgment, highlighting that a
licensed dealer or chemist may possess essential narcotic drugs in
accordance with the license. The authenticity of the petitioner's license
was verified by the Drug Inspector, and it was confirmed that he was
authorized to possess such substances. The court emphasized that the
petitioner's guilt was yet to be proven, and he had been in jail for over
two years. There was no evidence to suggest that he would flee or not be
available for trial. The court stated that gravity alone cannot be the
decisive factor in denying bail, and competing factors need to be
balanced when exercising discretion. The court clarified that if the
petitioner misuses his liberty or violates the conditions of bail, the
investigating agency has the right to request the bail's cancellation.

Mukesh Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 13 September,

2023

Himachal Pradesh High Court

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 15,25,29----------------BAIL 439

CRPC

The petitioner is seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) in a case registered under Sections 15, 25,
and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS
Act) at Police Station Dhan aula, District Bernalite petitioner's counsel
referred to a previous order dated 22.11.2022, in which the co-accused
of the petitioner were granted regular bail. This order noted the extended
custody of the co-accused and the fact that no prosecution witness had
been examined. The FIR was registered based on secret information
about individuals, including the petitioner, bringing Poppy Husk for
sale. A raid was conducted, and Poppy Husk was recovered from a truck
and an Innova car. The petitioner, Gurpreet Singh, was later nominated
as an accused because he was the registered owner of the truck. The
petitioner's counsel argued that Gurpreet Singh was not named in the
disclosure statement, not found at the spot, and had been in custody for
over a year and eight months without any prosecution witness being
examined. The prosecution argued that Gurpreet Singh is involved in
another FIR under the NDPS Act, although the quantity involved in that
case is small. The petitioner was previously granted interim bail, and
after availing it for three months, he surrendered and did not misuse the
concession. The petitioner has been in custody for almost two years, and
only one prosecution witness has been examined, indicating that the trial
is likely to take a considerable amount of time. The court considered the
fact that the co-accused had already been released on bail, the
petitioner's extended custody, the lack of need for custodial
interrogation, and the likely duration of the trial. The court allowed the
petition and directed the petitioner to be released on bail, subject to
the satisfaction of the trial court, with the provision for the
prosecution to apply for bail cancellation if the petitioner is found
involved in another case or misuses the concession of bail.

Darshan Singh vs The State of Punjab on 23 June, 2023

Supreme Court
NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 21,25,22----------------BAIL 439
CRPC

The case involves an individual named Pradeep who was apprehended

by the police based on secret information indicating he was involved in
selling intoxicating medicines. Upon Pradeep's arrest, the police
recovered a significant quantity of Alprazolam tablets and MTP kits
from him. Pradeep revealed that he had obtained the intoxicating tablets
from Mohammad Rayyan Ansari, who owned Arora Medical Store.
Subsequent raids were conducted at Arora Medical Store and a
residential address, but Mohammad Rayyan Ansari was not found at
either location. Call details of the mobile phones belonging to Pradeep
and Mohammad Rayyan Ansari were obtained, revealing that the two
accused had been in contact with each other. Mohammad Rayyan Ansari
was also found to be an accused in another case under the NDPS Act
and was absconding. The petitioner (Mohammad Rayyan Ansari) sought
anticipatory bail, contending that being named in a co-accused's
disclosure statement had limited evidentiary value. The petitioner cited
various legal precedents in support of his anticipatory bail application.
The State argued against the petitioner's bail, stating that he was a
habitual offender with multiple cases registered against him under
the NDPS Act. The court reviewed the petitioner's multiple FIRs and
found that the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act
were not satisfied. The judgment emphasized that the limitations of
bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are in addition to those under
the Cr.P.C. The court held that a habitual offender should not be
granted anticipatory bail and that custodial interrogation was
necessary to effect recoveries. In light of these findings, the anticipatory
bail application of the petitioner was dismissed.

Vijay Singh vs The State of Haryana on 17 May, 2023

Supreme Court

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 37,27,29----------------BAIL 439

CRPC

The case revolves around the arrest and detention of Ragini Dwivedi,
who is an actress, in connection with allegations related to illegal drug
activities. The search of Ragini Dwivedi's residence was conducted
based on information provided by B.K. Ravishankar on September 3,
2020. During the search, various items were recovered, but no drugs
were found. The seized items included mobile phones and a wooden box
labeled "Organic smoke menthol-free tobacco" with cigarettes inside. A
complaint was filed on September 4, 2020, by K.C. Goutham, an
Assistant Commissioner of Police, alleging that an organized network
was involved in illegal drug activities, financial transactions, and
supplying drugs to various individuals in Bengaluru. This information
was based on statements provided by B.K. Ravishankar. The complaint
implicated several individuals, including Ragini Dwivedi, in organizing
parties where drugs like Ganja, Ecstasy Pills, Cocaine, MDMA, and
LSD were supplied and consumed. Ragini Dwivedi was arrested on
September 4, 2020, and had been in detention since then. An
application for bail was filed by Ragini Dwivedi, which was rejected
by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge on September 28,
2020, based on the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS (Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances) Act. The judge cited the quantity
of seized drugs as the reason for denial of bail. The High Court, on
November 3, 2020, also denied bail to Ragini Dwivedi, relying on the
statement by B.K. Ravishankar under Section 67 of the NDPS Act,
the case diary, and the parameters of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The High Court found the conspiracy charge to be tenuous and noted
that the charge needed to be proved at trial. No chargesheet had been
filed in the case until the date of the court proceedings. The legal
judgment highlighted that the maximum sentence for the offense of
consuming certain drugs under Section 27 of the NDPS Act was one
year (Section 27(a)) and six months (Section 27(b). The application
of Section 37 was found to be incorrect. The court granted bail to
Ragini Dwivedi, setting aside the judgment of the High Court, and
imposed conditions for her release. The observations made in the
judgment were not to be used to hinder the ongoing investigation or at
the trial. The judgment in the case also applied to another appellant,
Shivaprakash, who was granted anticipatory bail. A related writ
petition (W.P. Curl. 384 of 2020) became infructuous and was
dismissed.

Ragini Dwivedi @Gini @Rags vs The State of Karnataka on 21

January, 2021

Supreme Court -

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 15----------------BAIL 439 CRPC

Satpal was convicted and sentenced for the recovery of 10 kilograms of

poppy husk. The case was filed based on FIR No. 284, dated
20.09.2002, under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Durante
prosecution's case revolved around the recovery of the contraband from
Catalase Inderpal Singh, the complainant, recovery official, and
investigating officer, was a key witness for the prosecution. Notice
under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was served, and Satpal responded
that he was ready to be searched by ASI Inderpal Singh. A search was
conducted, and 10 kilograms of poppy husk were found in a plastic bag.
Two samples were prepared, and the residue was found to be 9 ½
kilograms. The prosecution argued that the appellant was charged under
Section 15 of the NDPS Act based on the recovery. The prosecution
presented five witnesses, including ASI Inderpal Singh, Inspector Bhag
Singh, Ramesh Kumar, Balwinder Singh, and MHC Satinder Singh. The
defense argued that the conduct of the investigating officer was not fair,
and there were contradictions in the statements of the material witnesses.
The defense claimed that ASI Inderpal Singh failed to inform the
appellant about his legal right to be searched by a magistrate or a
Gazette Officer. The defense also pointed out discrepancies in the
number of lots used to weigh the poppy husk and raised questions about
the police vehicle's registration number. It was noted that no independent
witness was joined at the time of the recovery, and the prosecution's
claim that the witness was won over by the appellant lacked supporting
evidence. Concerns were raised about the integrity of the case property
seal, which was found partially broken. The defense argued that the
prosecution failed to forward a special report to the learned magistrate
after registering the FIR. The court found that the contradictions in the
statements of material witnesses and the conduct of the investigating
officer raised significant doubts about the case. As a result, the court
set aside the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence,
acquitting Satpal from all charges.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.

Satpal Singh vs The State of Punjab on 27 March, 2018

Supreme Court -

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 37----------------BAIL

The appellant filed an appeal against the order passed by the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana, which rejected his prayer for anticipatory bail.
The rejection of anticipatory bail was based on the discovery of 0.78 Kg
of Ketamine and 5.405 Kg of white powder suspected to be Ketamine,
along with 100 vials of Ketamine hydrochloride injection I.P. for
veterinary use, all seized under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The appellant's counsel argued
that the appellant had a valid license to manufacture Ketamine
hydrochloride under Form 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. The
court allowed the appellant's prayer, setting aside the impugned order,
and directed that if the appellant is arrested, he shall be granted bail
upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000 with two solvent sureties for
the same amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge in the NDPS
case. This decision essentially grants anticipatory bail to the
appellant based on the validity of his license to manufacture
Ketamine hydrochloride.

Riyaz Razak Memon vs Union of India on 7 May, 2014

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 37,22----------------BAIL 439 CRPC

In this case, the petitioner was arrested under the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, with allegations that a quantity of
intoxicating powder was found in their possession. The petitioner has
claimed that they were falsely implicated and has sought bail. The court
discussed the provisions of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, which
outlines the conditions for granting bail in cases related to narcotic
substances. The court found that while the first part of Section 37(1)(b)
(ii) regarding the satisfaction of the court was met, the second part,
which pertained to the belief that the accused would not commit "any
offense" after being released on bail, was irrational and impossible for
the court to determine. The court noted that the requirement of believing
that the accused would not commit any offense after being released on
bail was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated the fundamental rights of
the accused. The court cited judgments from the Supreme Court and
held that the provision in question raised constitutional concerns. In light
of this, the court allowed the petitioner's application for bail. The court
found that the petitioner was not likely to commit any offense,
considering the lack of evidence, prior acquittal, and the
irrationality of the requirement under Section 37(1)(b)(ii). The
petitioner was ordered to be released on bail during the trial, upon
furnishing the required bail bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of
the trial court.

Ankush Kumar @ Sonu vs State of Punjab on 9 August, 2018

Punjab-Haryana High Court

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 21,27,29---------------- 482 CRPC

In this case, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure to challenge an order passed by the trial court,
which canceled the petitioner's bail. The petitioner was initially granted
interim bail on 13.01.2021 and was regularly appearing before the trial
court. However, on 09.12.2021, the petitioner failed to appear in court
due to a mistaken date. As a result, the trial court canceled the
petitioner's bail and forfeited the bail bonds. The petitioner's counsel
argued that the petitioner had a legitimate reason for not appearing in
court on the mentioned date and was ready to participate in the trial
proceedings. The next date of the hearing before the trial court was
scheduled for 04.05. 2022.The Senior Deputy Advocate General (Sr.
DAG) representing the State accepted notice and opposed the petitioner's
prayer, stating that the cancellation of bail was justified due to the
petitioner's absence. However, the Sr. DAG did not dispute that the next
court hearing was set for 04.05. 2022.The court observed that the trial
court had canceled the petitioner's bail solely due to his absence, despite
the fact that the petitioner had been on bail since January 2021. The
court noted that there could be legitimate reasons for the petitioner's
non-appearance and accepted the explanation offered by the petitioner.
As a result, the court set aside the impugned order dated 09.12.2021,
subject to the petitioner's appearance before the trial court on or before
the next hearing date of 04.05.2022. The petitioner was allowed to
remain on the same bail and surety bonds. However, the court warned
that if the petitioner failed to comply with this order, the cancellation of
bail order would remain intact. The matter was disposed of accordingly.

Lovepreet Singh @ Lovpreet Singh vs State of Punjab on 12

September, 2023

Punjab-Haryana High Court

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 21,37---------------- BAIL 439 CRPC

In this case, the applicant was found in possession of a significant

quantity of narcotic drugs, specifically 14.4 grams of Tramadol HCL in
the form of 288 capsules of Spas Tran can Plus and 10 kilograms of
Energex cough syrup containing Codeine Phosphate. The prosecution
has charged the applicant with offenses under the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.The court considered the legal
provisions of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, which deals with the
conditions for granting bail in cases of certain drug-related offenses,
especially those involving commercial quantities of drugs. This
section stipulates that a person accused of an offense involving
commercial quantity is not to be released on bail unless the court is
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused
is not guilty of the offense and that the accused is not likely to commit
any offense while on bail. The court emphasized that the limitations
imposed by Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act are mandatory and
must be satisfied before bail can be granted in cases involving
commercial quantities of narcotics. The principle of parity (i.e.,
granting bail based on the actions taken in similar cases) cannot be the
sole ground for bail if it contravenes the statutory requirements of
Section 37. In this case, the applicant was found in possession of
commercial quantities of narcotic drugs. The court considered whether
there were reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant was not
guilty of the offense and whether the applicant was not likely to commit
further offenses if released on bail. The court concluded that these
statutory requirements had not been met. The court rejected the
applicant's bail application, emphasizing that, given the nature of
the offense and the legal requirements of Section 37, the principle of
parity could not be applied to grant bail. The court's decision was
based on the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and the specific
facts of the case.

Paras Singh vs State of Chhattisgarh 20 ... on 1 July, 2020

Chhattisgarh High Court

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 21,37---------------- BAIL 439 CRPC

Arguments by the Petitioner's Counsel:

The accused was arrested merely on suspicion without genuine grounds.

No contraband was recovered from the accused's possession. The
accused had been falsely implicated in previous cases related to similar
offenses. The multiple cases against the petitioner were seen as evidence
of malice on the part of the prosecution. The statements of co-accused
during police interrogation were the main evidence against the
petitioner.

Arguments by the Public Prosecutor:

Serious charges had been brought against the petitioner. The petitioner
was alleged to be one of the masterminds behind the crime. The accused
was involved in illegal drug peddling over a long period. The offense
involved commercial quantity of contraband. The statutory restrictions
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act should be considered.

Court's Decision:

The court considered the gravity of the case, the prima facie
incriminating evidence, and the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS
Act. The court ruled that due to the seriousness of the charges and the
prima facie incriminating evidence against the petitioner, bail should
not be granted at this stage. The court also noted that the NDPS Act's
restrictions on granting bail needed to be adhered to.

Smt. Rashmi raj Jayswal vs State of Chhattisgarh on 23 November,

2021

Chhattisgarh High Court

NDPS ACT, 1985 ------ SEC----- 21,22,25--------------- BAIL 438

CRPC

The case you provided is related to a petition for anticipatory bail. The
petitioner, Mohammad Rayyan Ansari, is accused of selling intoxicating
medicines, and a police party received secret information that he would
be coming from one place to another with illegal substances. The police
arrested the petitioner and recovered a significant number of Alprazolam
tablets and MTP kits from him. It was also revealed that the petitioner
was in touch with another accused, and he was involved in another case
under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The
petitioner's lawyer argued that his name was only mentioned in the
disclosure statement of a co-accused, which has limited evidentiary
value, and therefore, he should be granted anticipatory bail. They cited
various judgments in support of their argument. However, the court
referred to several judgments, including some from the Supreme Court,
and concluded that in cases where a person is named in a disclosure
statement and has a history of involvement in multiple cases under the
NDPS Act, the conditions for granting anticipatory bail are not met.
Custodial interrogation is deemed necessary to make recoveries and
advance the investigation. Therefore, the court denied the
anticipatory bail to the petitioner, and the case was dismissed.

Mohammad Rayyan Ansari vs State of Haryana on 21 September,

2023

Punjab-Haryana High Court