Bail Is the Rule, But Drug Trade Is the Exception—290 Grams of Heroin Is No Small Wrong: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Regular Bail under NDPS Act

When Narcotic Abuse Destroys the Nation’s Youth, Courts Must Respond with Unyielding Vigilance—Section 37 Is Not a Mere Formality - Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a plea for regular bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, after the recovery of 290 grams of heroin from the petitioner and his co-accused. The Court ruled that Section 37 NDPS applies in full force, as the recovered quantity is commercial in nature, and the petitioner failed to disprove his active involvement in drug trafficking, a burden statutorily cast upon him.

 Justice Sandeep Moudgil, in a strongly worded order, stated: “These young individuals are resorting to theft and other criminal activities to satisfy their drug cravings. This highlights the State’s failure to address the growing drug menace... like termites, it is eating away at the youth of the nation.”  

“A Transparent Polythene Bag Left on a Car Bonnet, Three Accused Flee, 290g Heroin Recovered—Prima Facie, It Is Active Possession”  

The FIR reveals that the petitioner, along with co-accused Gurmukh Singh and Rinku, was apprehended red-handed near a drain, with a polythene bag of heroin visibly placed on the bonnet of a Bolero vehicle, which they tried to flee from on spotting the police. The heroin weighed 290 grams, sealed and seized in accordance with NDPS protocol.  

The SHO stated in the FIR:  “I have clearly seen the intoxicant substance heroin in the open mouth transparent polythene bag left by you on the bonnet of the car... On checking and weighing, 290 grams of heroin was recovered.”

“Public Witnesses Were Not Joined, But That Alone Doesn’t Nullify Recovery—And Delay in Trial Doesn’t Override Section 37”  

The petitioner’s counsel had argued that no independent witnesses were joined, that samples weren’t drawn in presence of a Magistrate, and that the trial was moving slowly, with the petitioner in custody since March 2023.

 But the Court held:  “The jurisdiction to grant bail in commercial quantity cases is not governed by trial delay alone. Section 37 creates a statutory embargo, requiring twin satisfaction of innocence and no likelihood of reoffending—both of which are absent here.”

Section 37 NDPS Is Not Merely Cautionary—It Creates a Negative Burden on the Accused to Disprove Prosecution’s Case

Justice Moudgil emphasized that in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity:  “It is not the prosecution’s burden alone—the law casts a reverse burden on the accused. He must show that he is not guilty and will not commit any offence while on bail.”  

The Court cited Section 37(1)(b)(ii) verbatim to underscore the statutory threshold that was not met.  

Drug Crimes Threaten the Constitutional Fabric—Bail Cannot Be Routine Where Society Is in Peril

 In one of the strongest passages, the Court declared: “Drug is a social malady. Drug trafficking eats into the vitals of the economy, funds illicit activities, and encourages terrorism. Bail cannot be granted lightly in such cases.”

 The Court linked the accused's alleged involvement in drug trade with a larger systemic concern, adding that the rise in theft and allied offences among youth was a symptom of deep societal corrosion caused by narcotics.

Final Verdict: Bail Application Dismissed  

The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner:  

Was found in active possession of commercial quantity narcotics Failed to rebut the presumption under NDPS Act  Did not meet the twin conditions of Section 37 NDPS  

Justice Moudgil concluded:  “The petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. The rule of law and the intent of the legislature must be preserved at all costs.”  

This ruling reaffirms the strict bail regime under NDPS, particularly for commercial quantities, and highlights the judiciary’s zero-tolerance approach to drug trafficking. The Court made it clear that bail is not a default entitlement, especially when public interest and national integrity are at stake.

 In the Court’s own words:  “The lives and futures of the nation’s youth are not pawns in legal formalities. Drug crimes are national crimes—and courts must act accordingly.”

 Date of Decision: 11 March 2025