Sect. 37 NDPS | Where Heroin Is Recovered Separately, It Cannot Be Collectively Attributed To One Accused: Delhi HC

“It cannot be the case that where Heroin is recovered from the accused persons separately, it can be collectively attributed to the Applicant.” - Delhi High Court (Justice Neena Bansal Krishna) granted regular bail to Meena, accused under Sections 21/25/29 of the NDPS Act in FIR No. 87/2024. Emphasising that the Section 37 embargo cannot be triggered by aggregating contraband seized from co-accused, the Court anchored its ruling to the individual recovery from the applicant—100 grams of heroin, an intermediate quantity. The application was moved under Section 483 read with Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, and Section 439 CrPC.
The prosecution case stems from a late-April 2024 operation by the Crime Branch, Cyber Cell. On April 24, 2024, one co-accused, Akhil Dass, was intercepted with a bag containing 1,097 grams of heroin—a commercial quantity—following a Section 50 NDPS notice and field testing. His disclosure led to the applicant’s apprehension on April 26, 2024 near Metcalf House, Delhi, where 100 grams of heroin were allegedly recovered from her salwar pocket after compliance with Section 50. The applicant has been in judicial custody since April 26, 2024.

The defence asserted false implication, flagged alleged non-compliance with procedural safeguards (including Sections 42, 50 and 57 NDPS), and stressed that a 100-gram recovery is “intermediate,” not “commercial,” hence the rigours of Section 37 do not apply.
The State pressed that the total recovery from five accused was 1,347 grams, part of an “organized drug syndicate,” and sought to invoke Section 37 NDPS, citing Supreme Court precedents (Rajesh, Rattan Malik, Ram Samujh, Mohit Aggarwal) on the strict twin-conditions threshold. The prosecution also highlighted the applicant’s prior NDPS FIR to oppose bail.

The High Court, however, centred the individualized nature of recovery and parity. It noted that the chargesheet against Meena already stands filed; that three co-accused—two with intermediate quantities and one with no recovery—are on bail; and that the State’s attempt to load the applicant with co-accused quantity to attract Section 37 cannot be countenanced. In the Court’s words: “It cannot be the case that where Heroin is recovered from the accused persons separately, it can be collectively attributed to the Applicant.”
Justice Bansal Krishna recorded that Meena was apprehended with 100 grams (intermediate) and that, at this stage, continued incarceration serves no investigative purpose. “There is no further necessity of keeping the Applicant in custody for the purpose of investigation. The trial is at the nascent stage and would take long to get concluded,” the Court observed, before granting regular bail.

Bail was made subject to standard safeguards to secure presence and fair trial: a personal bond of ₹35,000 with one surety; appearance as and when required; maintenance of an active mobile number with the IO; non-indulgence in criminal activity; no communication with or intimidation of witnesses; and intimation of any change of address to the Trial Court and the IO. The Jail Superintendent and Trial Court were directed to be informed, and the application was disposed of.

The order sharpens an important NDPS bail principle for multi-accused cases: separate recoveries cannot be aggregated to visit any one accused with the Section 37 bar. With an intermediate quantity attributed to the applicant, chargesheet already filed, and similarly placed co-accused on bail, the High Court found prolonged custody unwarranted and enlarged the applicant on conditions.

Date of Decision: August 5, 2025