AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J.
Petitioner seeks regular bail in case vide FIR No.0260 dated 13.09.2025, under Section 22 of NDPS Act, Police Station Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar (Mohali). This is the first petition seeking regular bail.
As per allegations, on 13.09.2025, at about 3:30 p.m. petitioner was found in conscious possession of 1200 capsules of Spasmed, in the area of Ghaggar Railway Station, Mubarikpur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for release of the petitioner on regular bail on the ground that story of prosecution was highly improbable and there was no occasion for the petitioner to refuse association of Gazette Officer or Magistrate, at the time of his personal search. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner was innocent and was falsely implicated. He was in custody for the last more than 1 year. Investigation of the case was complete and no witness was examined till date. Therefore, petitioner be enlarged on regular bail.
Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for regular bail in view of commercial quantity of contraband involved and the bar of Section 37 NDPS Act.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Versus Balraj Singh @ Billa, 2026 INSC 618, while referring to its previous decisions, has observed as under:
14.As rightly submitted by the appellant State, this Court, in State of Meghalaya V. Lalrintluanga Sailo and another, 2024 SCC Online SC 1751 while setting aside the bail granted by the High Court therein had held that consideration on the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is essential by the concerned Court. It was observed:
"5.There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that in cases involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, while considering the application of bail, the court is bound to ensure the satisfaction of conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. The said provision reads thus:
"37.(1)(b)(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail." … … …
7.In the decision in Collector of Customs v. Ahmadalieva Nodira [Collector of Customs v. Ahmadalieva Nodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 834], the three-Judge Bench of this Court considered the provisions under Section 37(1)(b) as also Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, with regard to the expression "reasonable grounds" used therein. This Court held that it means something more than the prima facie grounds and that it contemplates substantial and probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Furthermore, it was held that the reasonable belief contemplated in the provision would require existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence.
… …
10.Thus, the provisions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act and the decisions referred supra revealing the consistent view of this Court that while considering the application for bail made by an accused involved in an offence under the NDPS Act a liberal approach ignoring the mandate under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is impermissible. Recording a finding mandated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which is sine qua non for granting bail to an accused under the NDPS Act cannot be avoided while passing orders on such applications." (emphasis supplied)
15.To the similar effect, this Court in State by the Inspector of Police v. B. Ramu 2024 SCC online SC 4074 reiterated that satisfaction with the conditions laid down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is mandatory while entertaining a prayer for bail involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs.[See also: Ajay Kumar Singh alias Pappu (Supra)]
16.In similar circumstances, this Court in Union of India v. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade 2025 SCC online SC 3049 observed that the mandatory nature of Section 37 cannot be dispensed with:
"12.Prima facie this Court is of the opinion that the Respondent-accused is involved in drug trafficking in an organized manner. Consequently, no case for dispensing with mandatory requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is made out in the present matter.
13.Moreover, this Court is of the view that as the accused has been charged with offences punishable with ten to twenty years rigorous imprisonment, it cannot be said that the Respondent has been incarcerated for an unreasonably long time."
(emphasis supplied)
Identical were the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Versus Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora 2026 SCC online SC 671 and Union of India Versus Namdeo Ashruba Nakade, 2025 SCC online SC 3049.
The provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act are mandatory in nature and recording of finding as mandated in Section 37 is sine qua non. Given the allegations against the petitioner and his antecedents, this Court is not in a position to record a satisfaction that there are reasonable ground for believing that petitioner is not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Prima-facie, the Court is of the view that petitioner is involved in drug trafficking, therefore, no case for dispensing with mandatory requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS is made out. The period of custody undergone by petitioner cannot be said to be substantial considering the punishment provided under Section 22 of NDPS Act.
Dismissed.
Nothing observed hereinabove shall be taken as an expression of opinion on merits of the case. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.