Prolonged Custody Alone Cannot Override Rigours of NDPS Act in Commercial Quantity Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in ₹9 Crore Drug Racket

“In an ordinary case, long incarceration may be a ground for bail, but when recovery is not only commercial but heavy in nature, rigours of Section 37 cannot be diluted” —  Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to grant bail to 17 accused in a massive multi-state drug trafficking conspiracy involving more than 3 crore intoxicant tablets and capsules, substantial drug proceeds, and a network extending across Punjab, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and Rajasthan. The decision, rendered in Rakesh Bansal v. State of Punjab & Ors., held that the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be strictly adhered to, and cannot be bypassed merely on the ground of prolonged pre-trial custody.

Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, dismissing all the bail petitions, observed, “This Court is not inclined to record the twin-test satisfaction in terms of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act in favour of the petitioner(s).”

FIR No. 72 of 2020 was registered on May 23, 2020, at Police Station Mehal Kalan, District Barnala, following credible secret information regarding a group of individuals allegedly engaged in the manufacture, procurement, transport, and supply of psychotropic substances across state lines. The initial recovery involved 2,500 tablets of Clovidol-100 SR from a Verna car, which soon led to cascading arrests and seizures across the country.

The cumulative seizure, according to the prosecution, included over 3.05 crore intoxicant tablets and capsules, 15.70 kg of broken loose tablets, drug money exceeding ₹9.35 lakh, six vehicles, and ten mobile phones.

Petitioners included directors of licensed pharmaceutical companies, chemists, transporters, and others. Most were not named in the FIR but were nominated solely based on disclosure statements of co-accused — a point heavily contested in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu.

The core legal question was whether prolonged incarceration of more than four years, when trial is pending, is enough to satisfy the “twin conditions” under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act — namely, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that:

1. The accused is not guilty, and

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

The High Court categorically answered in the negative. Justice Sindhu ruled: “Both the above conditions are cumulative and not alternative… the requirement of satisfaction regarding the accused being not guilty is to be recorded on the basis of reasonable grounds and that should be more than prima facie.”

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Rattan Malik, the Court noted:

“The expression ‘reasonable grounds’ means something more than prima facie… It connotes substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty.”

The Court went further, stating that while bail jurisprudence often leans towards personal liberty, that liberty must yield when faced with overwhelming material in commercial quantity NDPS prosecutions: “In the present case, recovery alleged against the petitioners is not only commercial; but heavy in nature… the trial is going on at a normal pace… and there is no lapse on part of the prosecution.”

The Court observed that many petitioners were habitual offenders with prior NDPS or Prisons Act violations. It stated: “The antecedents of the petitioners are also not clean… and they are involved in multiple criminal cases across various states.”

The Court further added: “Some of the petitioners were arrested from different parts of the country… which prima facie points to a deep-rooted conspiracy in a well-organized drug network.”

Rejecting the defence's reliance on precedents such as Rabi Prakash, Shince Babu, and Mahendra, the Court held that those were distinguishable: “In all those cases, either no recovery was made from the conscious possession of the accused, or the trial had not even commenced. Here, 54 prosecution witnesses have already been examined.”

This ruling sends a clear and unequivocal message: Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not a mere procedural formality, but a constitutional safeguard that must be rigorously applied in cases of commercial drug offences. The Court, while acknowledging the prolonged custody of the petitioners, maintained that liberty must be balanced with the gravity of organised drug crimes, especially in a state like Punjab, which is grappling with a serious narcotic crisis.

“Long incarceration alone is not sufficient to record satisfaction of innocence when the recovery is massive, the network is deep, and the trial is moving forward efficiently.”

The petitions were accordingly dismissed, and the Court requested the Special Judge to expedite the trial without unnecessary adjournments.

Date of Decision: 03 May 2025