Extensive Criminal History & S.37 NDPS Act Rigors Justify Bail Denial Despite No Direct Recovery: Punjab & Haryana High Court - 2025-07-31

P&H High Court Denies Bail to Woman with Extensive Criminal Record in Heroin Case, Cites S.37 NDPS Act Rigors

Chandigarh – The Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied regular bail to a woman implicated in a drug trafficking case involving a commercial quantity of heroin, emphasizing that an extensive criminal history and the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act override arguments of being a woman or having no direct recovery of contraband.

In the case of Seema vs State of Punjab , Justice Anoop Chitkara dismissed the petitioner's second bail application, highlighting that her past conduct demonstrated a high probability of reoffending if released. The court also issued a significant directive for police to report details of international drug operators to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Case Background

The case originates from FIR No. 125, registered on June 18, 2024, in Jalandhar under various sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The police had initially recovered 1 kg of heroin from a co-accused, Satish Suman. During interrogation, Suman disclosed that he procured the drugs on the instructions of a man named Lucky, allegedly operating a drug cartel from the USA.

Suman's disclosure statement implicated the petitioner, Seema, alleging that he had sold heroin to her. While no contraband was recovered directly from Seema, the investigation pointed to digital evidence, including WhatsApp communications, linking her to both Suman and the US-based operator, Lucky. The petitioner, who has been in custody for approximately nine months, has a history of eight prior criminal cases, most of which are under the NDPS Act, including one conviction that resulted in a 10-year sentence.

Arguments Presented

The petitioner’s counsel argued for bail on several grounds: - The petitioner is a woman. - No recovery of narcotics was made from her possession. - Her continued pre-trial incarceration of around nine months was unjust.

The State’s counsel vehemently opposed the bail plea, citing the seriousness of the offense, the commercial quantity of heroin involved (1 kg), and the petitioner's extensive criminal history.

Court's Reasoning and Application of S.37 of NDPS Act

Justice Chitkara systematically dismantled the petitioner's arguments, centering the court's reasoning on the non-negotiable twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which apply when a commercial quantity of contraband is involved.

The court noted that Section 37 places a "reverse burden" on the accused to prove two things for bail to be granted: 1. There are reasonable grounds to believe they are not guilty of the offense. 2. They are not likely to commit any offense while on bail.

The judgment stated that the petitioner failed to satisfy these stringent conditions. The court observed:

"The submissions made in the Court and the grounds in the bail petition do not shift the burden that the legislature places on the accused under S. 37 of the NDPS Act. The investigation reveals sufficient prima facie evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime; thus, the petitioner fails to make out a case for bail."

Regarding the petitioner's criminal antecedents, the court held that they were a crucial factor in assessing the likelihood of reoffending.

"Given the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, the probability of the petitioner repeating the offence, if released on bail, is significantly higher."

The court also dismissed the argument for bail based on the petitioner's gender, stating that while the legislature provides a separate category for women, it is not an automatic ground for bail in serious offenses, especially when coupled with a significant criminal history. Similarly, the nine-month custody period was not considered prolonged, given the minimum sentence prescribed for the offense.

Directive on International Drug Trafficking

In a notable move, the court went "beyond its canvas" to address the growing menace of international drug trafficking. Citing the involvement of an individual named Lucky operating from the USA, Justice Chitkara directed the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police/Commissioner of Police to send details of the investigation, including Lucky's phone numbers, to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The objective is to enable the Ministry to communicate these inputs to its counterparts in the United States. A copy of the order was also marked to the DGPs of Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh to consider implementing similar protocols.

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court dismissed the bail petition, concluding that the prima facie evidence and the petitioner's criminal past did not warrant her release. However, the court granted the petitioner liberty to re-apply for bail before the trial court if the trial is not concluded within three years, provided the delay is not attributable to her.

This judgment reinforces the high threshold for granting bail in commercial quantity drug cases under the NDPS Act and underscores the significant weight courts place on an accused's criminal history when evaluating the "likelihood to re-offend" condition under Section 37.