NDPS bail principles: concurrent bail jurisdiction exists, but Section 37 and unauthorised export allegations can still defeat release.

A regular bail application was maintainable directly before the High Court because Section 439 CrPC gives concurrent bail jurisdiction to the High Court and the Sessions Court, so prior recourse to the Sessions Court was not mandatory. On the merits, the absence of the psychotropic substances from Schedule I of the NDPS Rules did not, by itself, justify bail, as the applicant was not shown to fall within the medical or scientific use exceptions and was alleged to have attempted clandestine export without licence or authorisation. The Court also applied Section 37 NDPS Act, treating the allegations as involving commercial quantity and finding that the twin bail conditions were not satisfied, so discretionary relief was refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the applicant could be entertained in a regular bail application directly before the High Court without first approaching the Sessions Court; (ii) whether the absence of the psychotropic substances from Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, 1985, and the scheme of the NDPS Act and Rules entitled the applicant to bail; (iii) whether the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 barred grant of bail in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): whether the applicant could be entertained in a regular bail application directly before the High Court without first approaching the Sessions Court.

Analysis: The power to grant bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concurrent in the High Court and the Court of Sessions. The choice of forum lies with the applicant, and the mere fact that the applicant did not first move the Sessions Court was held not to be a ground for rejection of the bail plea.

Conclusion: The application was maintainable before the High Court.

Issue (ii): whether the absence of the psychotropic substances from Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, 1985, and the scheme of the NDPS Act and Rules entitled the applicant to bail.

Analysis: Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act prohibits possession, export and related operations except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner provided by the Act, the Rules, or authorised instruments. The Court examined the scheme of Sections 9, 22 and 76 of the Act and Rules 53, 53A, 64, 66 and 67 of the NDPS Rules, 1985, and distinguished the authorities relied upon by the applicant on the footing that those cases involved circumstances where the exception for medical or scientific use operated, whereas the present applicant was neither a medical practitioner nor a licensed manufacturer or authorised possessor and was allegedly attempting clandestine export of huge quantities of psychotropic substances.

Conclusion: The absence of the substances from Schedule I did not, by itself, entitle the applicant to bail.

Issue (iii): whether the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 barred grant of bail in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The Court treated the allegations as involving commercial quantity and emphasised that the twin considerations under Section 37 are cumulative. In view of the alleged conscious and unauthorized export activity, the admitted knowledge of the nature of the substances, the lack of licence or authorisation, and the possibility of recurrence, the statutory threshold for release on bail was not satisfied.

Conclusion: Bail was declined under Section 37.

Final Conclusion: The bail request failed on merits, and the applicant was not found entitled to discretionary relief in view of the NDPS prohibitions and the statutory restrictions on bail.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions under the NDPS Act, bail cannot be granted where the accused lacks licence or authorisation and the allegations disclose contravention of the prohibitory scheme of the Act and Rules, particularly when the twin conditions governing bail under Section 37 are not satisfied.

---