Delhi High Court on Cancellation of Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Case.

The Delhi High Court cancelled bail granted to three accused in a major heroin recovery case, holding that the trial court had passed the bail orders ignoring the mandatory conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Court found that the recoveries from the accused formed part of a single, continuous transaction arising out of a coordinated operation, and therefore the quantities had to be clubbed. Since the aggregated quantity amounted to commercial quantity, strict conditions applied. The trial court's failure to record satisfaction on the statutory twin conditions under Section 37 rendered the bail orders illegal, perverse, and unsustainable in law.

• The FIR (No. 407/2024 at PS Nand Nagri) was registered on 07.06.2024 based on secret information that accused Akash would arrive near Kali Mata Mandir to supply heroin.

• When approached by the police team, Akash allegedly threw a packet containing 120.25 g of heroin and attempted to flee to his residence.

• Based on his disclosure, police entered the house and recovered:

– 266.70 g heroin from Seema (mother)

– 73.60 g heroin from Shilpa (sister)

• Co-accused Naim was arrested separate with 12 g heroin.

• Total recovery = 472.55 g heroin (Commercial Quantity).

• Trial court granted bail to all three accused within days of arrest.

• The State sought cancellation of bail under Sections 439(2) and 482 CrPC, arguing that the orders were contrary to the NDPS Act.

• Recoveries form a single transaction – The Court held that the recoveries from all three accused were part of one continuous operation arising from the same secret information, same raid, same premises, and same chain of events.

• Clubbing of quantities is mandatory in conspiracy cases – Since Section 29 NDPS Act (criminal conspiracy) applied, the combined quantity had to be treated as one recovery.

• Commercial quantity attracts Section 37 NDPS Act – Once clubbed, the case involved commercial quantity, requiring the trial court to record findings that:

– (i) the accused were not prima facie guilty, and

– (ii) they were not likely to re-offend.

These findings were not recorded.

• Trial court’s approach improper – The trial court doubted the recovery without justification, ignored the criminal antecedents of Seema (12 prior cases, including 7 NDPS), and failed to appreciate that presence of a woman constable strengthens compliance with Section 50(4).

• Non-joining of public witnesses not fatal – The Court reiterated that NDPS recoveries cannot be discarded merely because public witnesses were unavailable.

• Bail orders are legally unsustainable – Because the trial court did not apply the mandatory statutory test, the orders amounted to non-application of mind.

• Petitions by the State allowed.

• Bail granted to Akash, Seema, and Shilpa is cancelled.

• Respondents directed to surrender forthwith, unless required in another case.

• Section 37, NDPS Act – Restrictions on bail in commercial quantity cases; mandatory twin conditions.

• Section 29, NDPS Act – Criminal conspiracy; joint liability.

• Sections 21 & 22, NDPS Act – Punishment for possession of manufactured drugs and psychotropic substances.

• Section 439(2), CrPC – Power to cancel bail.

• Section 482, CrPC – Inherent powers of High Court.