In cases involving commercial quantities of drugs, bail can only be granted if the accused demonstrates reasonable grounds for not being guilty, alongside satisfying stringent conditions.

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

2. Per paragraph 13 of the bail petition as well as custody certificate dated 05.03.2025, the accused has no criminal antecedents.

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 25.09.2024, based on secret information, the Police seized 500 gram heroin and .32 bore pistol with three live cartridges from the possession of co-accused Lovejeet Singh, Manpreet Singh and Gurpreet Singh. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973. During the custodial interrogation, the accused Manpreet Singh @ Mani named the petitioner in his disclosure statement, based on the disclosure statement, the police arraigned the petitioner as an accused by incorporating S. 29 of the NDPS Act.

4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.

5. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.

REASONING:

6. The quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The petitioner must satisfy the twin conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

7. In Abida v. State of Haryana, 2022:PHHC:058722, [Para 10], CRM-M-5077- 2022, decided on 13-05-2022, this court observed as follows:

[10]. Thus, both the twin conditions need to be satisfied before a person accused of possessing a commercial quantity of drugs or psychotropic substance is to be released on bail. The first condition is to provide an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor, enabling to take a stand on the bail application. The second stipulation is that the Court must be satisfied that reasonable grounds exist for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence, and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. If either of these two conditions is not met, the ban on granting bail operates. The expression “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Even on fulfilling one of the conditions, the reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence, the Court still cannot give a finding on assurance that the accused is not likely to commit any such crime again. Thus, the grant of bail or denial of bail for possessing commercial quantity would vary from case to case, depending upon its facts.

[31]. Satisfying the fetters of S. 37 of the NDPS Act is candling the infertile eggs. The stringent conditions of section 37 placed in the statute by the legislature do not create a bar for bail for specified categories, including the commercial quantity; however, it creates hurdles by placing a reverse burden on the accused, and once crossed, the rigors no more subsist, and the factors for bail become similar to the bail petitions under general penal statutes like IPC.

8. It would be appropriate to refer to the evidence collected against the petition, which is taken from the reply, which reads as follows:

“ Evidence against the petitioner: Petitioner has been nominated as accused u/s 29 of NDPS Act on the basis of disclosure statement of accused Manpreet Singh @ Mani.”

9. Thus, the evidence collected so far consists of disclosure statements and the petitioner’s confession without discovering any facts. Such statements can be proven subject to the mandatory restrictions imposed in S. 25 & 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ S. 23 of BSA, 2023.

10. In Tofan Singh