NDPS bail restrictions under mandatory statutory conditions cannot be bypassed by relying on a missing co-accused

In NDPS bail matters involving commercial quantity, Section 37 imposes mandatory restrictions: the Public Prosecutor must be heard and the Court must record reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty and will not commit an offence on bail. Bail granted without those statutory findings is unsustainable and liable to cancellation. The absence of a co-accused is not a valid basis to enlarge an accused on bail, because a criminal case may proceed separately and that circumstance cannot override the Section 37 embargo. The revision succeeded, the bail order was set aside, and the accused was directed to surrender.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether bail granted in an NDPS case could be sustained without compliance with the statutory conditions under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. (ii) Whether the absence of the co-accused justified granting bail to the respondent.

Issue (i): Whether bail granted in an NDPS case could be sustained without compliance with the statutory conditions under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Analysis: Section 37 imposes mandatory restrictions on bail in offences involving commercial quantity and requires an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the application, and satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. The impugned bail order did not record the requisite satisfaction and was granted on considerations not recognised by Section 37.

Conclusion: The bail order was unsustainable and liable to be cancelled.

Issue (ii): Whether the absence of the co-accused justified granting bail to the respondent.

Analysis: The absence of another accused was held not to be a valid basis for enlarging the respondent on bail. A criminal case can be split and tried separately when circumstances require, and the pendency of apprehension of a co-accused does not override the statutory bar under Section 37.

Conclusion: The absence of the co-accused did not justify grant of bail.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the bail order was set aside, and the respondent was directed to surrender, with the trial to proceed independently in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In NDPS offences, bail cannot be granted unless the Court satisfies the mandatory requirements of Section 37, and considerations such as non-availability of a co-accused cannot override that statutory embargo.

---