Controlled substance treatment removed Section 37 bail bar, leading to bail in a pseudoephedrine recovery case.

Pseudoephedrine was treated as a controlled substance, not a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act, so the rigour of Section 37 did not apply. On that basis, the Court found the statutory bar on bail inapplicable and considered the petitioner's long custody since 15 December 2011, along with comparable bail orders in similar controlled-substance matters, as supporting release. The earlier bail refusal in Rizwan Ahmad was not treated as a , because the later view was noted as contrary to the explicit language of Section 37 and per incuriam. Bail was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in a case involving recovery of pseudoephedrine, where the substance was treated as a controlled substance and the bar under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was held inapplicable.

Analysis: The prosecution case was that 100 kgs. of pseudoephedrine was recovered from a vehicle driven by the petitioner. The substance was treated as a controlled substance and not a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance within the meaning of the Act. Once that position was accepted, the rigour of Section 37 did not apply. The Court also noted that the petitioner had remained in custody since 15 December 2011, and that in comparable cases involving similar controlled substances, bail had been granted after considering the period of custody. The reliance on the earlier order dismissing bail in Rizwan Ahmad was found not to preclude relief, as the later view that it was contrary to the explicit language of Section 37 and per incuriam was noticed.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to bail.

---