Key Points: - The NDPS Act Section 37 originally made offences cognizable and non-bailable; later amendments restrict strict bail for certain sections (19, 24, 27A) and commercial quantity, not all offences (p_76, p_78, p_81, p_85, p_91–p_94) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Post-2001 amendments, the rigours of bail apply mainly to Sections 19, 24, 27A and commercial quantity; small-quantity offences may not be automatically non-bailable (p_97, p_101, p_51) (!) (!) (!) - Baldev Singh Constitution Bench held broad non-bailability, which conflictingly influenced later judgments (p_35, p_36, p_41, p_47) - Stefan Mueller and Rhea Chakraborty discuss whether all NDPS offences are non-bailable; dispute among High Courts about binding precedents (p_24, p_32, p_60, p_57) - The court in this judgment proposes to refer the matter to a larger Bench to decide if all NDPS offences are non-bailable (p_59, p_129) - Section 67 statements are discussed as admissible for investigation but may be inadmissible at trial per Toofan Singh, requiring corroboration (p_14, p_15, p_20)

What is the correct interpretation of bail eligibility under NDPS Act, specifically whether all offences are non-bailable or only certain sections impose stringent bail conditions? (Question referencing Section 37, its amendments, and case Baldev Singh)

What is the admissibility and use of statements under Section 67 NDPS Act for custodial interrogation and trial, including due weight at investigation vs. trial?

Should there be a reference to a larger Bench to resolve conflicting judicial views on whether all offences under NDPS Act are non-bailable irrespective of punishment or quantity?