NDPS | Mere Absence of Contraband No Ground for Bail When Recovery from Co-Accused Points to Coordinated Drug Network: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"Statutory embargo under Section 37 NDPS Act cannot be circumvented merely because contraband is not recovered from petitioner; when drug money is recovered and coordinated activity is alleged, rigours of law must apply"- Punjab and Haryana High Court

On January 19, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dismissing a regular bail petition in Deepak Thapa v. Union Territory, Chandigarh (CRM-M-68366-2025), reiterated the strict standards under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 for offences involving commercial quantity, holding that mere absence of contraband recovery from an accused is insufficient to dilute the rigours of the statute when other incriminating material suggests active participation in a drug trafficking network.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Sumeet Goel observed that the recovery of ₹4.40 lakhs in alleged drug proceeds from the petitioner and the commercial quantity of 140 grams of Racemorphan recovered from a co-accused "prima facie indicates the petitioner’s involvement in the drug trafficking operation", and that the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) NDPS Act were not satisfied to warrant release on bail.

Commercial Quantity from Co-Accused and Drug Money from Petitioner Cannot Be Viewed in Isolation

The case arose from FIR No. 20 dated 08.03.2025 registered at Police Station Sector 49, Chandigarh, invoking Section 21 of the NDPS Act and subsequent addition of Section 29 of the NDPS Act and Sections 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, 1959. The petitioner, Deepak Thapa, was not found in possession of any narcotic substance; however, on the basis of disclosure statements and investigative leads, he was implicated for having received drug money and facilitating drug trafficking through coordinated efforts with multiple co-accused.

Justice Goel rejected the contention that separate recoveries could not be clubbed to bring the case under "commercial quantity", noting that:

“The recovery of narcotic substance from the co-accused cannot be viewed in isolation. At this stage, a prima facie satisfaction is sufficient for the purpose of consideration for plea of regular bail.”

Court Refuses to Adjudicate Disputed Facts Regarding Source of Recovered Money at Bail Stage

The petitioner had claimed that the ₹4.40 lakh recovered was part of a ₹6 lakh amount loaned by a friend for construction of his house in contemplation of marriage. The Court, however, held that:

“The explanation furnished by the petitioner regarding the source of the recovered money involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be conclusively adjudicated at this stage.”

Justice Goel underlined that bail courts are not meant to conduct a mini-trial and should only assess whether a prima facie case exists. Citing the settled principle, the Court noted:

“Whether the recovered amount is ultimately proved to be drug money is a matter to be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial.”

Custody of 10 Months Not Sufficient to Override Statutory Embargo under Section 37

While the petitioner had been in custody since March 8, 2025 — over 10 months — and the trial had only progressed up to the framing of charges on December 2, 2025, with no witness examined till date, the Court was not persuaded to grant bail on this ground. It held:

“Delay alone is not a ground to override Section 37 NDPS Act, especially where the nature of allegations and quantity involved point towards serious organised drug activity.”

The Court referred to several authoritative decisions of the Supreme Court including Union of India v. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade, Union of India v. Vigin K. Varghese, and NCB v. Mohit Aggarwal to underline the judiciary’s consistent approach in preserving the sanctity of Section 37 and public interest against the menace of drug trafficking.

Antecedents and Other FIRs Strengthen Court’s Rejection of Bail Plea

Another significant factor in the Court’s assessment was the petitioner’s antecedents. The record revealed his involvement in three other FIRs, which, though not elaborated upon in the judgment, played a role in determining whether the second limb of Section 37(1)(b) — that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail — was satisfied.

Justice Goel noted:

“No accentuating or exceptional circumstances have been made out which may prima facie constitute a compelling ground for grant of regular bail... The antecedents of the petitioner reflect 03 other FIR(s) against him.”

"The Petitioner Has Failed to Satisfy the Twin Conditions Under Section 37 NDPS Act"

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to bail in light of the gravity of the allegations, commercial quantity involved, and the coordinated nature of recoveries among co-accused:

“From the material available on record, this Court is unable to record satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty or that he is not likely to commit an offence while on bail.”

The Court thus dismissed the petition, emphasizing that its observations are confined to bail adjudication and shall not prejudice the merits of trial.

Date of Decision: 19 January 2026