NDPS | Liberty Must Yield to Public Interest in Drug Offences: Bombay High Court Denies Bail in 500g Mephedrone Recovery Case

“Once Commercial Quantity is Recovered and Section 37 Applies, Bail Cannot Be Granted Lightly” - Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) refused bail to Arshad Karar Khan, accused of being in conscious possession of 500 grams of Mephedrone, a banned psychotropic substance under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). Justice Amit Borkar, while dismissing the application, upheld the strict mandate of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, holding that no case for bail was made out, given the commercial quantity, previous criminal antecedents, and statutory presumption of guilt.

“In NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity, Personal Liberty Must Yield to Public Interest”: Bombay HC Upholds Stringent Bail Standards

The applicant was arrested on 21 February 2024, following specific intelligence received by the Navi Mumbai Anti-Narcotics Cell, alleging that he would arrive near Pendhar Bridge Phata, Taloja, to sell drugs. Acting on the tip-off, the police intercepted him and recovered 500 grams of off-white crystalline powder, later confirmed by forensic analysis to be Mephedrone (4-Methylmethcathinone) and Methamphetamine. The Court noted that seizure was made in the presence of two independent panch witnesses, and that statutory procedures under Sections 42, 50, and 52A of the NDPS Act were duly complied with.

“Presumption Under Section 54 Applies Once Possession is Established — Mere Denial Is Not Enough”

The defence, led by Advocate Mr. Taraq Sayed, argued that there were irregularities in the sealing process and a delay in sending the sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory. It was also contended that the Chemical Analyzer's Report was not timely, and the mobile phone location of the accused did not correspond with the place of arrest.

However, the Court rejected these submissions, noting:

“The seizure panchanama, the inventory certified by the Magistrate, and the Chemical Analyzer’s report sufficiently establish that the substance seized from the possession of the applicant was indeed Mephedrone, a psychotropic substance prohibited under the NDPS Act.” [Para 17]

“The presumption of regularity attaches to official acts, unless cogent evidence is shown to the contrary... The statutory presumption under Section 54, therefore, squarely operates against him.” [Paras 11, 27]

The Court further held that even if there were minor delays or variations in the seals, they did not go to the root of the seizure or undermine the authenticity of the evidence.

“Once Recovery of Commercial Quantity is Established, Section 37’s Twin Conditions Become Mandatory and Cumulative”

Justice Borkar emphasized that Section 37 of the NDPS Act creates a statutory embargo against bail in cases involving commercial quantity unless the Court is satisfied that:

1. There are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty, and

2. He is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

“These two conditions are mandatory. The satisfaction of both is a sine qua non for granting bail. In the present case, neither of these conditions stands fulfilled.” [Para 8]

Noting the absence of any plausible explanation for possession, the failure to rebut statutory presumption, and the lack of any exceptional circumstance, the Court found that the case did not fall within the limited exceptions that would permit a departure from Section 37’s rigour.

“Past Conduct Cannot Be Ignored — Repeated Involvement in Drug Offences Shows Continuing Tendency to Offend”

The Court also took note of the applicant’s three previous criminal antecedents for similar offences, observing that past conduct was relevant while considering whether the accused was likely to commit another offence if granted bail.

“His repeated involvement in similar offences demonstrates a continuing tendency and negates the second condition under Section 37, namely, that he will not commit an offence while on bail.” [Para 24]

The contention that the seized quantity might be below the commercial threshold was dismissed as a mere assumption, not supported by any evidence. The seizure panchanama, signed by independent witnesses, clearly recorded the weight as 500 grams, which falls in the commercial category under the NDPS Act.

“Section 37 Is Not a Mere Procedural Hurdle — It Reflects Legislative Intent to Combat Drug Trafficking with Stringent Standards”

In a strongly worded observation about the object of the NDPS Act, the Court stated:

“Drug trafficking is not an isolated act. It has wide-ranging social and economic consequences. It destroys families, endangers public health, and undermines law and order.” [Para 34]

“Section 37 of the Act restricts the power of the Court to grant bail in cases involving commercial quantity. The Court cannot exercise discretion in the same manner as in ordinary offences.” [Para 35]

The Court reiterated that grant of bail in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity must not be routine, and must only be considered when both statutory conditions are satisfied. Since the applicant failed to discharge the burden, the application was liable to be rejected.

High Court Affirms Strict Enforcement of Bail Restrictions in Drug Cases

In refusing bail, the Bombay High Court reaffirmed the prosecution-friendly structure of the NDPS Act, particularly in cases involving commercial quantity. The ruling underscores that mere procedural irregularities, absent prejudice, do not undermine a seizure, and that the presumption of culpability under Section 54 must be rebutted through convincing evidence — a threshold the applicant could not meet.

“In the larger interest of society and in keeping with the object of the NDPS Act to curb the menace of drug trafficking, personal liberty must yield to public interest.” [Para 37]

Date of Decision: 15 October 2025