S.37 NDPS Act Rigors Prevail Over Prolonged Custody in Commercial Quantity Drug Cases: Rajasthan HC Denies Bail - 2024-12-19

Legal Articles | Court & Judgment Updates

Rajasthan High Court Denies Second Bail Plea in 784 kg Poppy Husk Seizure, Cites Unwavering Mandate of Section 37 NDPS Act

Jaipur , Rajasthan: The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, has dismissed a second bail application filed by Gopal Singh , accused in a case involving the seizure of a commercial quantity of 784 kilograms of opium doda powder (poppy husk). Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uma Shanker Vyas , in a judgment pronounced on December 19, 2024, underscored that the stringent conditions for bail under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, must be satisfied, even in cases of prolonged pre-trial detention.

The bail application (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 13751/2024) was filed in connection with FIR No. 65/2020 registered at Police Station Pagariya, District Jhalawar, for offences under Sections 8/15, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act.

Case Background

The prosecution's case is that on August 17, 2020, upon receiving information, authorities searched the petitioner Gopal Singh 's residence. They allegedly recovered 38 bags containing a total of 784 kg of opium doda powder from an unnumbered Bolero pick-up vehicle parked in his courtyard. This quantity was noted by the court to be approximately 15 times the commercial quantity (50 kg) defined under the NDPS Act. The petitioner has been in custody since May 9, 2022.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner (Mr. Ali Mohammed Khan, Adv.): The counsel for Gopal Singh argued that the petitioner was innocent and had been falsely implicated. It was contended that the mandatory provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act (regarding disposal and sampling of seized narcotics) were not strictly complied with. The prolonged period of incarceration (since May 2022) and the likelihood of a lengthy trial were also put forth as grounds for bail. The petitioner cited Supreme Court judgments like Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (following Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI ) regarding consideration of bail after substantial custody, and other instances where the Apex Court had granted bail in NDPS cases. Arguments were also made regarding alleged non-compliance with sampling procedures, citing Mangilal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Simranjit Singh vs. State of Punjab .

For the State (Mr. Devi Singh, PP): The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, emphasizing that a commercial quantity of narcotic substance was recovered. It was argued that the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were attracted, and considering the gravity of the offence, the bail application should be dismissed.

Court's Rationale and Decision

Justice Uma Shanker Vyas , after perusing the record and hearing both sides, delivered a detailed judgment denying bail. The court heavily relied on the stringent twin conditions for bail laid down in Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act for offences involving commercial quantities. These conditions require the court to be satisfied that: (i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence, and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Emphasis on Section 37 NDPS Act: The court extensively quoted Section 37 and referred to landmark Supreme Court judgments, including: * State of Kerala vs. Rajesh (2020) 12 SCC 122 * Union of India vs. Ajay Kumar 2023 SCC (Online) SC 346 * Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Mohit Aggarwal AIR 2020 SC 3444

The court reiterated the principle established in Mohit Aggarwal , stating: > "In our opinion the narrow parameters of bail available Under Section 37 of the Act, have not been satisfied in the facts of the instant case. At this stage, it is not safe to conclude that the Respondent has successfully demonstrated that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the offence alleged against him, for him to have been admitted to bail. The length of the period of his custody or the fact that the charge- sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting releif to the Respondent Under Section 37 of NDPS Act." (Para 18 of Mohit Aggarwal , as quoted in the judgment)

Distinction from SC's Article 142 Powers: Addressing the petitioner's reliance on certain Supreme Court orders granting bail in NDPS cases, the High Court cited its own division bench ruling in Daulatsingh vs. State of Rajasthan 2015(2) Crimes 695 (Raj.) . This precedent clarified that the Supreme Court might pass such orders under its extraordinary jurisdiction (Article 142 of the Constitution) to do complete justice, a power not available to High Courts or trial courts. High Courts are bound by statutory provisions.

Arguments on Prolonged Custody and Section 52A Compliance: The court found that arguments regarding prolonged custody or the filing of the chargesheet do not automatically warrant bail when the conditions of Section 37 are not met. Regarding the alleged non-compliance with Section 52A sampling procedures, the court observed that this was a matter to be determined during the trial and, prima facie, no technical flaw was apparent at the bail stage. The precedents cited by the petitioner on this point were distinguished as being related to appeals against conviction after trial, not bail applications.

Gravity of NDPS Offences: The court also cited Union of India Vs. Ram Samujh and Ors. 1999(9) SCC 429 , where the Supreme Court highlighted the severe impact of drug trafficking on society, stating: > “...those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instrumental in causing death or in inflicting death-blow to a number of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable; it causes deleterious effects and a deadly impact on the society; they are a hazard to the society..."

Prima Facie Involvement: The court concluded that based on the evidence collected during the investigation, the petitioner's prima facie involvement in the case was apparent. At this stage, it could not form an opinion that the petitioner was prima facie innocent. Therefore, the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not satisfied.

Final Order

"Considering the arguments presented by both sides, legal provisions, Supreme Court decisions, the gravity of the offence, and other circumstances, without commenting on the merits of the case, it does not appear appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner-accused," the court stated.

Consequently, the second bail application of Gopal Singh was dismissed. The trial against the accused is ongoing, with the trial court having already taken cognizance of the charges. This judgment reinforces the judiciary's strict stance on bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics, prioritizing the legislative mandate of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.