The Saket Courts, on September 9, 2025, heard a bail application filed by the accused under Section 483 BNSS. ASJ Gaurav Gupta allowed the application, noting that the recovery of contraband from co-accused could not be combined with the quantity recovered from the accused, and consequently, the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply.
The case arose from an investigation into a drug syndicate operating in Delhi and Meghalaya. An FIR at the Neb Sarai, Delhi PS was filed where the police made a subsequent raid in a house and arrested three other accused who had allegedly abducted two persons. The police after searching the premises recovered 3.119 kg of ganja and also found that the abducted individuals were out delivering the said contraband given by the accused. Upon further investigation it was revealed that the alleged syndicate procured ganja from Meghalaya and distributed it in Delhi, with multiple raids leading to the arrest of several co-accused and recovery of approximately 74 kg. On the instance of the accused, police traced the supply chain to a resident of Shillong, from whom 20.15 kg of ganja was recovered. The prosecution argued that the accused was an active member of the syndicate and that his recovery constituted commercial quantity under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which prescribes enhanced punishment for possession of commercial quantities of contraband. The accused contended that he was not informed of the grounds of his arrest, that his personal recovery was below the commercial quantity of 20 kg, and that the recoveries of his co-accused could not be attributed to him.
The Court placed its reliance on the consistent view of the Delhi High Court in Anita @ Kallu vs. State NCT of Delhi (2023 DHC 4934), Nawab vs. State NCT of Delhi (Bail Appln. No. 2458/2024), Chhalimubdin vs. State NCT of Delhi (2025 DHC 2162), Soni vs. State NCT of Delhi (Bail Appln. No. 401/2025), and Meena vs. State (2025 DHC 6549), and noted that recovery of contraband from co-accused cannot be clubbed to bring the quantity within commercial limits, and only the individual recovery of the accused stood relevant. Since the individual recovery of contraband from the accused fell under the intermediate category the Court did not deem it fit to apply the rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act. The Court on the account of the investigation being completed, the chargesheet being filed and the accused having no prior criminal record noted that further detention served no purpose. Accordingly, the application was disposed off and the accused was granted bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with one surety of the like amount and a copy of the order to be supplied to the jail superintendent.
Appearances:
For the State– Additional PP Sh. Jagdamba Pandey
For the Accused– Advs- Sh. Akshay Bhandari, Ms. Megha Saroa and Sh. Janak Raj Ambavat
