Temporary bail under the NDPS Act is unlikely to be granted on humanitarian grounds if the statutory conditions of Section 37 are not met and there are other capable family members to provide care for ailing relatives.

ORAL ORDER

1. Issue Rule, fixed forthwith. Learned APP waives Service of Rule on behalf of Respondent – State.

2. The Applicant is before this court seeking temporary bail for the period of 30 days in connection with offence registered vide F No. NCB/AZU/CR-11/2022 with NCB Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Section 8(c),22(c), 27A,28,29,30,35,54(a) and 54(c) of the NDPS Act . The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad vide order dated 09.04.2026 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 189/2026 rejected the temporary bail application of the present Applicant. Hence, the present application.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Pavankumar B. Rajput for the Applicant would submit that the Applicant is not named in the FIR. The Applicant is an innocent person and has been wrongly implicated in the said offence. That the mother of the Applicant is aged 85 years and requires care and supervision for the health, welfare, and well-being of her wife and son.

3.1 That the Applicant’s mother has anemia, blood deficiency, and bilateral inguinal hernia, causing constant pain in the abdomen and private parts, and she needs to undergo an operation and needs to be admitted in the hospital so that special arrangements for financial needs can be made. Thus, praying to grant temporary bail for 30 days.

3.2. Learned Advocate for the Applicant further submits that his wife has constant pain in her ankle and has developed osteoarthritis, due to which she is unable to walk, and therefore she requires special medical treatment for her ankle and, thus, also to arrange financial arrangements, the present Applicant is required to be enlarged on temporary bail.

3.3. Learned Advocate for the Applicant would further submit that the Applicant has outstanding payments on bank loans and personal loans, and the burden of interest and penalties is increasing and needs to be paid. The Applicant has been in judicial custody since 15.10.2022, approximately 3 years and 6 months. That if the Applicant is not granted temporary bail, the petitioner’s spouse, father, mother, and five children are facing a very deteriorated financial situation, and thus the presence of the Applicant is required. The Applicant has supplied chemicals and not the NDPS goods as alleged in the FIR, more particularly when the statement of the bank manager would reveal that the payment is received, which has nothing to do with the goods in question which are seized. Thus, it is argued that on humanitarian grounds, the Applicant may be granted temporary bail.

SPACE LEFT WITH PURPOSE

4. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. S.R. Shukla and learned APP would submit that the Applicant, under one or the other pretext, is filing bail applications for grant of temporary bail, which have been rejected, more particularly considering the commercial quantity of Alprazolam weighing 8.4 kg and Nordazepam weighing 68.226 kg, and also considering the bar under Section 37 of the Act, no case is made out. More particularly, the Applicant is a permanent resident of Telangana; therefore, there are all chances of the Applicant remaining absconding. Various bail applications were either withdrawn or dismissed right up to the Supreme Court, and thus it is argued to reject the present application. Learned Advocate further submits that around seven hundred calls have been made between the present Applicant and co-accused from time to time, which shows the complicity of the present Applicant. More particularly, considering such huge quantity of narcotic substance seized, it is ar