Section 37 NDPS Act Is Not a Mere Procedural Form—Twin Conditions for Bail Are Cumulative and Mandatory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in Multi-Crore Drug Racket

“Long Incarceration Alone Cannot Trump Statutory Bar in Commercial Quantity Cases Where Trial Is Ongoing and Accused Are Habitual Offenders”, - In a significant judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to grant bail to a group of 17 accused in a massive interstate drug trafficking case involving the illegal diversion of over 3 crore tablets and capsules containing psychotropic substances. Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, while dismissing the bail petitions, upheld the rigorous standards of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, emphasizing that the twin conditions for bail are not mere formalities, but substantive and mandatory.

The Court ruled that where the alleged recovery is of commercial quantity, bail cannot be granted unless the Court is satisfied that the accused is not guilty and not likely to reoffend—and both these conditions must be fulfilled cumulatively, not alternatively.

“Commercial Quantity + Prior Offences + Progressing Trial = No Bail Under Section 37”
While rejecting the petitioners’ argument of prolonged custody and partial trial progress, the Court made it clear: “Long incarceration, by itself, cannot be a ground to dilute the statutory rigours under Section 37 NDPS Act when the recovery is heavy and the accused are habitual offenders.”

Justice Sindhu underlined that the contraband seized—over 3 crore intoxicant tablets, drug money of over Rs. 9 lakh, and vehicles used in transportation—pointed to a well-organized drug network operating across multiple states. The Court further noted that: “The gravity of the offence is not just in the weight of the contraband, but also in the sophistication and scale of the network.”

It was observed that some of the accused were owners of pharmaceutical firms or chemists, who misused their licenses to facilitate trafficking. The Court remarked: “Such abuse of legal mechanisms for narcotic trade poses a deeper threat to public health and institutional integrity.”

“The Two Conditions in Section 37 Are Cumulative, Not Disjunctive”
The Court invoked the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. Rattan Malik to reaffirm that: “The expression ‘reasonable grounds’ under Section 37 connotes substantial probable cause—mere suspicion or incomplete trial record is insufficient to invoke the exception.”

Quoting Union of India v. Mohd. Nawaz Khan, the Court added: “The test is not whether the accused will ultimately be acquitted, but whether the material on record at this stage shows reasonable grounds to believe they are not guilty.”

Accordingly, the Court held: “In the present case, the prosecution has examined 54 witnesses. The claim that the trial is unduly delayed is factually incorrect.”
Furthermore, the petitioners had a history of involvement in similar offences, including earlier convictions under the Prisons Act. The Court emphasized:
“Where past conduct suggests a pattern of narcotic dealings, the presumption of risk upon release becomes stronger.”

“Public Interest in Combating Drug Menace Must Guide Judicial Discretion”
Justice Sindhu contextualized the case in the broader socio-legal framework, observing: “The State of Punjab continues to grapple with a grave drug crisis. Courts must be acutely aware of their responsibility to prevent misuse of bail provisions in such offences.”

Rejecting the petitioners’ reliance on precedents like Tofan Singh and Rabi Prakash, the Court noted that: “Those were cases where the recovery was not from conscious possession or where trial had stagnated. In contrast, the present case involves direct and voluminous recoveries linked to the petitioners and a progressing trial.”
The Court concluded that permitting release at this stage would risk derailing the ongoing prosecution and embolden further criminal activity.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s ruling reiterates that bail in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity is not a matter of routine. The Court has sent a clear message: unless both twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) are convincingly met, bail is impermissible. The petitioners, being allegedly involved in a structured and habitual narcotics racket, failed to clear this high bar.
“Consequently, there is no option, except to dismiss all the petitions ‘at this stage’... Learned Special Court is requested to proceed in the matter expeditiously and to avoid unwarranted adjournments.”

Date of Decision: 3 May 2025