Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.37 – Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable – FIR registered u/ss.21(c)/29/61 and 85 NDPS Act against the respondent – Case against the respondent that the co-accused persons made a disclosure that the respondent had directed them to collect the heroin from the canal area and keep it for further supply on his instructions, while lodged in the Jail – Pursuant thereto, he came to be arrayed as an accused, and that the respondent operating drug trafficking network from inside jail using illegal mobile phones – Respondent filed application seeking regular bail and was rejected – However, in the appeal, the High Court granted regular bail after relying upon the period of custody and the likelihood of the trial taking a considerable time – Correctness:
Held: When it comes to cases involving commercial quantity of narcotics, the mandatory requirements of s.37 ought to be considered – Instant case involves commercial quantity – In such a scenario, consideration and reference to the twin conditions enumerated u/s.37 was mandatory – Upon a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that there has been no consideration at all by the High Court on the twin conditions, thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law – Upon consideration of the case of the respondent against the twin conditions laid down in s.37, no case for bail made out – There are antecedents involving commission of offences of the very same nature under the NDPS Act, thus, it cannot be said that he is not likely to commit such an offence while on bail – Moreover, the respondent has only undergone 1 year 7 months, and if found guilty a maximum sentence of twenty years may be imposed upon him – Thus, it cannot be said that he suffered incarceration for a long period, warranting interference in view of Art.21 – Paramount consideration is nothing but interest of justice for all – Should there be any conflict between the sovereignty of country and personal liberty, undoubtedly, the former shall prevail, particularly, when a war is waged against the nation, be it in the form of supply of drugs, which vitally affects the national economy and health of the people – Thus, the impugned order passed by the High Court set aside. [Paras 17-22]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 2867/2026.. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.