No Bail for Drug Offenders Just Because Time Has Passed: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Successive Bail in Commercial Mephedrone Case

“Where Recovery is Commercial Quantity and Supply Chain is Clear, Bail Cannot Be Granted Merely Because Trial Will Take Time”, Gujarat High Court dismissed a successive regular bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in a serious narcotics case involving commercial quantity of Mephedrone (MD). The application was filed by Shrikrishna Ghanshyam Swen, who is facing trial under Sections 8(c), 22(c), and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar, while rejecting the application, underscored that the stringent twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act must be satisfied before bail can be granted in such matters.

“The offence against the applicant is very serious in nature and earlier applications after filing of the charge-sheet have not been entertained. Hence, question of delay in trial does not arise.” [Para 6.0]

Applicant’s Role in Drug Supply Chain Proven Through CDRs, Bank Transactions, and Co-Accused Statements

Though the applicant was not named in the original FIR, the investigation revealed that he was a key link in the supply chain, having allegedly supplied the MD drug from Mumbai through co-accused Aditya and Jay Makwana. The contraband, weighing 80.26 grams of Mephedrone, was ultimately seized from co-accused Nirmit Jadeja in Surat during a Rath Yatra patrol on 2 July 2024.

“Sufficient material including the CDR and bank details are collected which connects the whole chain of supply by the accused persons.” [Para 7.1]

The Court noted that amounts of ₹50,000 were twice transferred from the applicant’s account to those of other co-accused, reflecting a live money trail.

“It reveals from the investigation papers that there is live link of the present applicant with the drug peddlers and the persons who are indulged in drug trafficking.” [Para 7.3

No Parity in Bail Where Role is Distinct and Recovery is Conscious Possession

One of the core arguments by the applicant’s counsel was that co-accused Ronak had been granted bail, and hence the present applicant was also entitled to parity. However, the Court emphatically rejected this contention, pointing to the differing roles and recovery of commercial quantity from the applicant’s possession.

“Role of co-accused Ronak was different. Except the statement of co-accused, no material was available against Ronak… Herein, from the conscious possession of the present applicant, the contraband was found.” [Para 7.3]

“Rigors of section 37 of the NDPS Act would be applicable in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1751.” [Para 7.3]

“Mere Repetition of Bail Application Without New Grounds is Misuse of Process”

The High Court observed that the second bail application had been filed within two months of the previous rejection, without any change in factual circumstances or emergence of new evidence.

“It is the duty of Court to consider the reasons and grounds, which persuade to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application… there is no reason or ground.” [Para 6.0]

Citing Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598, the Court held that the mere right to file successive bail applications does not imply they can be entertained mechanically or without justification.

Court Refuses to Examine Evidence Prematurely: Section 52A and Procedural Defects Must Be Tried at Trial

The applicant’s counsel also alleged non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act regarding sampling procedures, and questioned the evidentiary value of statements made by co-accused under Section 67. These arguments were summarily rejected as premature at the bail stage.

“Compliance of section 52A of the NDPS Act cannot be gone into… correctness of drawing of sample itself is a question of evidence.” [Para 9.1]

Quoting from Bharat Amble v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 INSC 78, the Court reiterated that evidentiary appreciation is the domain of the trial court, not the bail court.

Stringent Bail Test Under Section 37 of NDPS Act Must Be Met

Justice Suthar affirmed the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in cases involving commercial quantity, ruling that the twin conditions therein override the normal bail principles under the CrPC.

“A liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is uncalled for… The limitations prescribed under the NDPS Act are in addition to CrPC.” [Para 8.0]

“Merely the contraband was not in conscious possession of present applicant does not absolve him… He was in constant touch with accused No.1.” [Para 7.5]

Court’s Closing Remarks: No Bail, Trial to Be Expedited Within 10 Weeks

Holding that the applicant’s liberty was outweighed by the societal interest in curbing drug trafficking, the Court dismissed the bail plea while directing the trial court to conclude proceedings within 10 weeks.

“The liberty of a citizen has got to be balanced with the interest of the society… drug addiction has assumed serious and alarming proportions.” [Para 8.2]

“In view of the above, there being no merits in the present application, same is hereby dismissed. However, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.” [Para 10.0]

Date of Decision: July 18, 2025