NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail

Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a bail application filed by Sarabjeet Singh @ Monu, charged with possessing 28 injections of Buprenorphine, a commercial quantity under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). Justice Anoop Chitkara held that the petitioner failed to meet the stringent conditions imposed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which requires the Court to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty of the offense and is unlikely to re-offend if released on bail.

The judgment emphasized the legislative intent behind the NDPS Act to curb drug-related offenses through strict enforcement and reiterated that compliance with procedural requirements alone does not suffice to grant bail in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband.

The case arose from the petitioner’s arrest on December 5, 2023, when the police, acting on prior information, seized 28 injections of Buprenorphine from his possession. The prosecution contended that the investigation adhered to all statutory requirements under the NDPS Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, and that the quantity of contraband recovered constituted a commercial quantity, thereby invoking the strict bail provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the case lacked merit, asserting that Buprenorphine, classified as a psychotropic substance, was within permissible personal use limits under Rule 66 of the NDPS Rules, 1985. Counsel also claimed that the substance’s possession could, at most, attract charges under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, rather than the NDPS Act.

Justice Chitkara rejected the petitioner’s argument, observing that Buprenorphine is not an over-the-counter drug and requires a valid prescription, which the petitioner failed to produce. The Court further emphasized that the quantity recovered exceeded the commercial threshold, invoking the strict bail provisions of Section 37.

Section 37 requires the Court to be convinced on two fronts: first, that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty, and second, that the accused is unlikely to commit another offense while on bail. Justice Chitkara noted that the petitioner had not provided sufficient evidence or arguments to meet this high threshold.

The Court highlighted that the legislative intent behind Section 37 is to create significant hurdles for accused persons seeking bail in drug cases, ensuring that such relief is granted only under exceptional circumstances.

While noting that the petitioner had no prior criminal record, the Court held that this factor alone was insufficient to grant bail in the absence of compelling evidence to disprove the allegations. The Court also observed that the petitioner’s custody of 11 months could not be considered prolonged, particularly given the gravity of the offense.

Justice Chitkara referred to recent Supreme Court precedents, including Union of India (NCB) v. Khalil Uddin, to underline the necessity of balancing individual liberty against public interest in cases involving narcotics and psychotropic substances. The Court emphasized that reasonable grounds for believing the accused’s innocence must extend beyond mere prima facie evidence and require substantial proof.

Dismissing the bail application, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reaffirmed the importance of adhering to the rigorous conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband. The judgment reflects the judiciary’s commitment to supporting legislative efforts to combat drug-related offenses and ensuring public safety through stringent enforcement of the law.

Date of Decision: November 19, 2024.