Intermediate quantity under NDPS Act removes Section 37 rigour; bail turns on ordinary principles and custody was unjustified.

Where the alleged recovery was of intermediate and not commercial quantity, the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply, so bail had to be examined on ordinary principles. The Court reiterated that bail is the rule and pre-trial custody is not to operate as punishment. Since the challan had already been filed, no further recovery remained, and there was no material showing antecedents, tampering risk, or threat to the investigation, continued detention was not justified. Bail was granted subject to conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail was liable to be granted where the alleged recovery was of intermediate quantity, rendering the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act inapplicable, and where continued custody was otherwise unsupported by any showing of antecedents, further recovery, or risk to the investigation.

Analysis: The alleged quantity was held to be intermediate and not commercial, so the stringent restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply. The application was therefore to be assessed on the ordinary principles governing bail. The Court applied the settled approach that bail is the rule and refusal the exception, with custody before conviction not to be used as punishment. It also noted that the challan had already been filed, no further recovery was to be effected, there was no material to show that the accused was a habitual offender, and prolonged detention would amount to pre-trial punishment.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the petitioner, subject to conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the alleged contraband is of intermediate quantity and Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted, bail must be considered on ordinary bail principles, and continued custody cannot be justified merely by the seriousness of the allegation in the absence of concrete reasons such as risk of tampering, further recovery, or antecedents.

---