Bail in Commercial NDPS Cases Cannot Override Law Just Because of Jail Time: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Relief to 17 Accused in ₹3-Crore Drug Racket

"Organised Inter-State Drug Syndicate Not Entitled to Liberty at the Cost of Justice", In a detailed judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed as many as 17 bail applications arising from a multi-state narcotics trafficking case involving the seizure of over 3 crore intoxicant tablets, several vehicles, mobile phones, and drug money. Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu emphatically held that: “The statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not diluted merely because of long custody—especially where recovery is heavy and trial is ongoing.”

The judgment deals with a large-scale network of accused individuals, many of whom were not named in the FIR, but were later implicated based on disclosures and consequential recoveries, including substantial contraband from across Punjab, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal.

The case originated from FIR No. 72 dated 23.05.2020, registered at Police Station, Mehal Kalan, District Barnala, on the basis of specific intelligence inputs regarding a narcotics cartel operating in Punjab. Several persons were apprehended with drugs in a Verna car, leading to a cascading trail of arrests and recoveries from various locations across India.

Notably, the contraband recovered included:

“Over 3.05 crore intoxicant tablets and capsules, more than 15 kilograms of loose drugs, six vehicles, 10 mobile phones, and drug money totalling more than ₹9.35 lakh.”

The accused included chemists, pharmaceutical company directors, and retailers—many with previous criminal records, including convictions and pending trials under NDPS and the Prisons Act.

High Court on Section 37 NDPS Act: “Statutory Twin Conditions Are Cumulative, Not Alternative”

Reiterating settled jurisprudence, the Court cited Union of India v. Rattan Malik (2009) 2 SCC 624 and Union of India v. Mohd. Nawaz Khan (2021) 10 SCC 100, and observed:

“No person accused of a commercial quantity offence under the NDPS Act shall be released on bail unless the Court is satisfied that (i) he is not guilty of the offence, and (ii) he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. These are not optional tests—they are cumulative and mandatory.”

Justice Sindhu further stressed:

“The satisfaction must be based on ‘reasonable grounds’, which connotes something more than prima facie assumptions. It must be a substantive, objective belief supported by record and facts.”

"Judicial Discretion Must Not Undermine the Legislative Mandate"—Court Rejects Arguments on Delay and Article 21

Many of the petitioners, including professionals and license holders, argued that their prolonged incarceration of over four years without trial conclusion violated Article 21 of the Constitution. But the Court was unequivocal:

“Though incarceration impacts liberty, it cannot be used to undermine the explicit mandate of Section 37 in cases involving commercial quantity.”

The Court noted:

“Out of 160 prosecution witnesses, 54 have already been examined, 46 given up, and trial is progressing steadily. There is no delay attributable to prosecution.”

Disclosure Statements Alone Are Not Incriminating—But Recovery in Consequence Validates Their Use

Referring to Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1, the Court acknowledged that confessional statements to police under NDPS Act are inadmissible. However, it clarified:

“Where disclosure leads to actual recovery of contraband, the resultant evidence can be relied upon. In this case, recoveries were not merely based on confessions, but on corroborative action.”

“They Are Not First-Time Offenders, but Repeat Participants in a Pan-India Racket”

A major ground for denying bail was the history of prior offences among the petitioners. The Court laid out extensive details:

“Most petitioners are habitual offenders. Some have been convicted in earlier cases, while others face multiple pending trials under NDPS and the Prisons Act. This Court cannot shut its eyes to their criminal antecedents.”

The Court observed that the alleged syndicate spanned Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, West Bengal, and Rajasthan, and was not a case of casual violation but:

“A well-structured drug trafficking racket involving licensed pharmaceutical businesses, chemists, transport operators, and retail supply chains.”

“Bail Cannot Be Used to Derail Trial or Undermine Rule of Law”—Court Cautions Against Premature Release

Responding to the argument that the petitioners are not in possession of contraband or were arrested based on indirect linkages, the Court said: “The issue at bail stage is not guilt or innocence in full, but whether the twin conditions are satisfied. Where direct and circumstantial evidence connects the accused, bail cannot be granted just to shorten custody.”

The Court further noted: “Five more accused are yet to be apprehended. Releasing these petitioners may embolden others to tamper with evidence, abscond, or sabotage trial.”

Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, while dismissing all 17 bail petitions, concluded with clarity: “The present case reflects the depth of organised criminal drug networks operating across state lines. Prolonged incarceration cannot be the basis for bail when Section 37’s conditions remain unmet.”

He directed the Special Court to expedite the trial, and clarified that the observations shall not affect the merits of the case.

Date of Decision: 3rd May 2025