In cases of coordinated narcotics recovery from multiple individuals within a single continuous operation, quantities must be aggregated to determine if the commercial threshold is met, necessitating strict adherence to statutory twin conditions for bail eligibility.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 37 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439(2) - Cancellation of bail - Aggregation of quantity - For the purpose of bail in cases involving coordinated search operations, where contraband is recovered from multiple individuals during a single, continuous, and connected transaction indicating a common design, the recovered quantities must be aggregated to determine whether the threshold for commercial quantity is met. (Paras 19, 20, 21)

(B) Statutory Mandate - The twin conditions under Section 37 are mandatory and do not permit a relaxed evaluation of evidence at the bail stage; failure to record explicit satisfaction regarding these conditions renders a bail order perverse and legally unsustainable. (Paras 24, 25)

(C) Judicial Discretion - Appellate courts are duty-bound to intervene when bail orders are passed in total disregard of mandatory statutory bars, failing to consider relevant material such as prior criminal antecedents of the accused. (Paras 28, 29)

Facts of the case:
During a search operation, contraband was recovered from several individuals found at the same premises in a connected sequence of events. The lower court granted bail to the accused by treating the recoveries as independent, thereby categorizing the quantity as intermediate rather than commercial. The authorities sought cancellation of these bail orders, contending that the trial court ignored the mandatory requirements for bail in commercial quantity cases and failed to aggregate the total recovery.

Findings of Court:
The recoveries were found to be part of a single, coordinated operation linked to a common purpose. The trial court's failure to address the statutory twin conditions, combined with the omission of the accused's significant prior criminal history, demonstrated a non-application of judicial mind, rendering the bail orders perverse.

Issues: Whether recoveries from multiple individuals in a single, continuous operation can be aggregated to determine the quantity under the relevant legal framework and whether the lower court erred in granting bail without recording the mandatory statutory satisfaction regarding prima facie non-guilt and likelihood of re-offending.

Ratio Decidendi: Where multiple recoveries arise from a continuous transaction evidencing a shared criminal design, the total quantity must be aggregated. Bail cannot be granted in cases involving commercial quantities without the court recording a reasoned satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is innocent and unlikely to re-offend, as strictly mandated by statute.

Result: Petitions allowed; bail orders set aside.

Table of Content
1. overview of fir registration, investigation, and grant of bail. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. state's contention on section 37 ndps act compliance and aggregation of commercial quantity. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. respondents' contention on independent recoveries and procedural lapses. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. criteria for clubbing recoveries and invoking section 37 statutory bar. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. perversity in bail orders by ignoring criminal antecedents and mandatory statutory conditions. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
6. cancellation of bail due to disregard of statutory mandate. (Para 30 , 31)

Reserved on: 29.10.2025

Pronounced on: 01.12.2025

Uploaded on: 01.12.2025

JUDGMENT

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. These three petitions are filed by the State/petitioner under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“Cr.P.C.”], seeking cancellation of bail and setting aside of the impugned orders dated 15.06.2024, 25.06.2024 and 12.07.2024 passed by the learned ASJ/Vacation Judges, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts [“trial court”], whereby the accused persons/appellants namely Seema, Shilpa and Akash respectively were granted regular bail in case FIR No. 407/2024, registered at Police Station Nand Nagri under Sections 21/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [“NDPS Act”].

2. Since the three petitions emanate from a common set of facts and pertain to the same FIR, they are being disposed of together by this common judgment.

Factual Matrix

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on 07.06.2024, at about 1:20 PM, the Investigating Officer received secret information that Akash, resident of D Block, Nand Nagri, who was allegedly involved in supply of heroin, would arrive near Kali Mata Mandir between 3:00-3:30 PM. The information was reduced into writing as DD No. 7, forwarded to the senior officers, and directions were issued to constitute a raiding team.

4. Around 3:10 PM, the raiding party reached the spot and noticed a person matching the informer’s description. On seeing the police, the person (later identified as Akash), allegedly threw a polythene packet on the road and ran toward his residence (House No. D-1/45, Nand Nagri). He was apprehended at the stairs of the said house. The packet thrown by Akash was found to contain 120.25 grams of heroin.

5. Upon interrogation, he disclosed that he had received the contraband from his mother Seema, who was inside the house. The raiding team entered the house and found Seema (mother of Akash) and Shilpa (sister of Akash) present inside. The search, conducted by W/HC Pooja in the presence of ACP Nand Nagri, led to recovery of 266.70 grams of heroin from Seema and 73.60 grams of heroin from Shilpa.

6. Subsequently, based on Akash’s disclosure, co-accused Naim was also arrested, and 12 grams of heroin were recovered from him. The total recovery amounted to 472.55 grams of heroin, which constitutes ‘commercial quantity’ under the NDPS Act. Consequently, FIR No. 407/2024 was registered at PS Nand Nagri under Sections 21/29 NDPS Act, and all accused persons were taken into custody.

7. The accused persons preferred bail applications. The trial court vide orders dated 15.06.2024, 25.06.2024 and 12.07.2024 granted bail to the accused persons namely Seema, Shilpa and Akash respectively within 08 days, 18 days and 30 days of their arrest respectively. Being aggrieved by the orders of the trial court, the State has preferred the petition seeking cancellation of their bails.

Submissions on behalf of the State

8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the impugned bail orders are ex facie illegal, perverse, and contrary to the statutory mandate contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, inasmuch as the learned trial court granted regular bail to the accused persons/respondents without even satisfying the twin conditions of Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 9826

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIRavinder Dudeja, JState – AppellantVersusAkash – RespondentCRL.M.C. 7914/2024

In cases of coordinated narcotics recovery from multiple individuals within a single continuous operation, quantities must be aggregated to determine if the commercial threshold is met, necessitating strict adherence to statutory twin conditions for bail eligibility.

Cases Referred (6)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Ravinder Dudeja, J
State – Appellant
Versus
Akash – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 7914/2024