Case at a glance: The Rajasthan High Court has refused bail to an accused allegedly found with 210 kg of poppy husk. It held that “the length of custody alone, in a case involving a commercial quantity, is not a ground to override the statutory embargo of Section 37” of the NDPS Act, and found prima facie conscious possession and compliance with Section 42.
FIR 69/2024 at PS Lohawat, District Phalodi, was registered under Sections 8 and 15 of the NDPS Act. Police allegedly recovered 210 kg of poppy husk in 11 bags from a shed near the house of the accused's father-in-law. The accused allegedly tried to flee and named a supplier; call records and chats were said to link them.
He has been in custody since 14 March 2024. The Special Judge (NDPS), Phalodi, refused bail on 1 July 2025, and he applied to the High Court under Section 483 BNSS.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can long pre-trial custody justify bail in a commercial-quantity NDPS case despite the Section 37 bar?
Article 21 Read With Section 37
The Court held that the commercial-quantity bar in Section 37(1)(b) applied, and conscious possession was prima facie made out from the prior information, presence, conduct and recovery; ownership of the premises “was not the test” (Mohan Lal, Madan Lal).
It found Section 42 complied with because the officer was empowered and forwarded the information, distinguishing Roy V.D. On delay, it noted he had not served half the maximum sentence under Section 479 BNSS and read Article 21 with Section 37, citing Mohd. Muslim, Vigin K. Varghese, Namdeo Ashruba Nakade, Balraj Singh and Sukhvinder Singh.
What the Court Actually Held
- Bail rejected.
- Section 37(1)(b) applies to the 210 kg commercial quantity.
- Conscious possession prima facie made out.
- Section 42 was complied with.
- Length of custody alone does not override Section 37; no opinion on merits.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It reflects the strict approach to bail in commercial-quantity cases.
- It clarifies how Article 21 delay arguments interact with Section 37.
- It addresses Section 42 compliance when an officer acts in place of the SHO.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Defence Counsel
- Build delay arguments with the trial's actual progress, not custody length alone.
- Test Section 42 empowerment and forwarding of information carefully.
For Prosecution Counsel
- Record the officer's empowerment and the chain of information under Section 42.
Key Takeaways
- Custody length alone does not defeat Section 37.
- Ownership of premises is not the test of possession.
- Section 42 compliance depends on empowerment and forwarding.
- Bail was refused.
Frequently Asked Questions
The Court held custody length alone cannot override Section 37 in a commercial-quantity case.
210 kg of poppy husk, above the 50 kg commercial quantity.
No. It expressed no opinion on the merits.
Conclusion
The ruling confirms a high threshold for bail in commercial NDPS cases, even after long custody.
Practical takeaway: Combine delay with specific Section 37 grounds; custody length alone is unlikely to succeed.