No Bail for Commercial Quantity as per Restrictions under Section 37 NDPS Act: Punjab and Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to grant lenient bail in drug trafficking cases, ruling that the mandatory restrictions under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 cannot be dispensed with for commercial quantity recoveries.

Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal presided over the matter, considering a regular bail petition filed by an individual apprehended with a commercial quantity of narcotics. The Bench was tasked with balancing the petitioner's claims of clean antecedents and procedural lapses against the strict prohibitive mandate of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Key Takeaways

Mandatory Statutory Compliance

Courts cannot adopt a liberal approach or ignore the mandate of Section 37 when dealing with commercial quantities of contraband.

Heightened Threshold for 'Reasonable Grounds'

'Reasonable grounds' for bail under the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 require more than prima facie evidence; they necessitate facts that justify a substantial belief that the accused is not guilty.

Procedural Lapses for Trial Consideration

Arguments regarding the non-association of independent witnesses or technical non-compliance are matters for the trial and do not automatically entitle an accused to bail.

Incarceration vs. Sentence Gravity

Periods of custody are weighed against the potential 10 to 20-year rigorous imprisonment prescribed for serious drug offenses, making early release difficult.

Restrictions on Bail under Section 37 of NDPS Act

The Punjab and Haryana High Court emphasized that the recording of a finding under Section 37 is a sine qua non for granting bail. Relying on the precedent set in State of Punjab Versus Balraj Singh @ Billa ( "2026 INSC 618": 2026 CaseBase(SC) 527), the Court noted that a liberal approach ignoring this mandate is impermissible. The bench observed that the petitioner was apprehended after discarding a bag containing a commercial quantity of contraband, which prima facie suggested involvement in organized drug trafficking.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in its reasoning, observed that "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, this Court is not in a position to record 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."

Ratio

In cases involving commercial quantities under the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the satisfaction of twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) is a mandatory prerequisite for bail. The term 'reasonable grounds' implies the existence of substantial and probable causes for believing the accused is not guilty, and a court cannot dispense with this requirement based on the duration of custody if the charges carry significant statutory penalties.

Background

The petitioner was arrested following a police patrol on January 18, 2025, in District Sangrur. It was alleged that upon spotting the police, the petitioner threw a bag containing 30 grams of sulfa/ganja, classified as a commercial quantity. The petitioner sought bail on the grounds of clean antecedents and alleged grave violations of the mandatory provisions of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, specifically the lack of independent witnesses during the recovery.

The State opposed the bail, invoking the rigours of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Punjab and Haryana High Court examined several precedents, including State by the Inspector of Police v. B. Ramu and Union of India v. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade, which reiterated the mandatory nature of Section 37. The Court further cited State of Punjab Versus Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora ( "2026 SCC online SC 671": 2026 CaseBase(SC) 363) to observe that even in cases of identical circumstances, the legislative intent to curb drug trafficking must prevail. Consequently, finding no reason to believe the petitioner was innocent, the High Court dismissed the petition.

Case Details:

Case No.: CRM-M-12378 of 2026 (O&M)

Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:131391

Case Title: Krishan Kumar Versus State of Punjab

Appearances:

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Dhiraj Jindal, Advocate

For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, DAG Punjab

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PNH) 20987