Joint possession under NDPS Act cannot be apportioned to bypass strict bail limits; temporary release granted during COVID-19 disruption.

Contraband recovered from joint possession under the NDPS Act cannot be mechanically apportioned equally among accused persons to avoid the rigour of section 37; on the facts, seizure of MDMA, bank transactions, and WhatsApp chats showed a prima facie nexus, so the apportionment argument was rejected. Temporary bail may nevertheless be granted on exceptional grounds, and the Court considered the COVID-19 disruption of trial functioning sufficient to justify limited release. The applicants were therefore granted temporary bail for six months on conditions of personal bond, surety, and surrender on expiry of the period.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the contraband allegedly recovered from joint possession could be apportioned equally among the accused so as to take the case out of the rigour of section 37 of the NDPS Act; and (ii) whether the applicants were entitled to temporary bail in view of the prevailing COVID-19 ion.

Issue (i): whether the contraband allegedly recovered from joint possession could be apportioned equally among the accused so as to take the case out of the rigour of section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Analysis: The material on record showed seizure of 20 grams of MDMA, bank transactions between the applicants, and WhatsApp chats indicating a prima facie nexus among them. The contention that the seized quantity from joint possession must be split equally between the accused was rejected. The legal position accepted was that the NDPS Act does not contemplate such apportionment merely because the recovery was from joint possession.

Conclusion: The plea to treat the seized quantity as separately divisible among the accused was rejected, and the objection based on apportionment did not assist the applicants.

Issue (ii): whether the applicants were entitled to temporary bail in view of the prevailing COVID-19 situation.

Analysis: Notwithstanding the prima facie material against the applicants, the Court took note of the fresh spread of COVID-19 and the consequent disruption of trial court functioning. On that basis, it considered temporary release for a limited period appropriate.

Conclusion: Temporary bail for six months was granted to the applicants on conditions of personal bond, surety, and surrender before the trial court on expiry of the period.

Final Conclusion: The applications were allowed only to the limited extent of temporary release on bail, while the substantive objection regarding joint possession and apportionment of the seized contraband was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In a case under the NDPS Act, contraband recovered from joint possession is not to be mechanically apportioned among accused persons for determining applicability of the commercial quantity bar, though temporary bail may still be granted on exceptional circumstances such as a pandemic-related disruption of trial proceedings.

---