NDPS bail pending appeal granted where discrepancies in seizure evidence and no criminal antecedents satisfied Section 37 concerns.

Bail pending appeal under the NDPS Act requires satisfaction of Section 37 restrictions, but the Court found sufficient doubt in the prosecution case to justify release. It noted the discrepancy between the number of packets loaded and unloaded, the absence of any inquiry by railway authorities into that discrepancy, and that no railway officer was arraigned despite being present at loading. The Court also observed no material showing prior criminal antecedents, reducing apprehension of repeat offending. On those factors, the appellant was entitled to bail subject to bond and sureties.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant No. 2 was entitled to bail pending appeal in view of the restrictions under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Analysis: The order records that the appellant stood convicted under Section 20(b)(II)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, so the bail application had to satisfy the statutory restrictions in Section 37 of the Act. The Court noted circumstances creating doubt about the prosecution version, including the discrepancy in the number of packets loaded and unloaded, the absence of any inquiry by railway authorities into that discrepancy, and the fact that no railway officer had been made an accused despite their presence at the loading stage. The Court also noted the absence of any material showing previous criminal antecedents of the appellant, which reduced apprehension of repeat offending while on bail.

Conclusion: The appellant No. 2 made out a case for bail and was entitled to be released on bail subject to furnishing bond and sureties.

---