The Gauhati High Court has firmly reaffirmed the stringent bail regime under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, holding that mere prima facie evidence of guilt is insufficient to deny bail - instead, the court must find reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty. This judgment clarifies the high threshold mandated by Section 37 and reinforces judicial restraint in granting bail for offences involving commercial quantities of narcotics.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Ribul Hussain Laskar and Abul Kasim Laskar, were arrested in connection with Dholai P.S. Case No. 105/2025 under Sections 21(c), 25, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The case, registered as NDPS Case No. 93 of 2025, arose from the recovery of 464 grams of heroin from their possession. The offence falls under the category of commercial quantity as defined under the NDPS Act, triggering the stringent bail conditions under Section 37.
Key Facts
- The quantity of heroin recovered: 464 grams
- The offence attracts mandatory minimum punishment under Section 21(c) and Section 25 of the NDPS Act
- The recovery occurred during a police operation in Vill. Joydhapur, P.S. Dholai, District Cachar, Assam
- The petitioners were arrested without prior notice and remanded to judicial custody
- No bail application was granted by the trial court prior to filing this application
Procedural History
- 2025: Dholai P.S. Case No. 105/2025 registered following recovery of 464 grams of heroin
- 2025: Petitioners arrested and remanded to custody
- 2026: Bail application filed before the Gauhati High Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)
- 10.02.2026: Judgment reserved
- 16.03.2026: Judgment pronounced
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought bail on the grounds that the evidence was circumstantial and that they had no prior criminal record. They requested release on personal bond with or without sureties, pending trial.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the High Court could grant bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act when the prosecution has established a prima facie case, and whether the standard of "reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty" requires more than mere suspicion or surface-level evidence.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The learned counsel, Mr. S.C. Biswas, argued that the recovery was not independently corroborated by independent witnesses, and that the petitioners had no prior history of drug-related offences. He contended that the quantity, while substantial, did not conclusively establish active trafficking, and that the petitioners were merely in possession without intent to distribute. He relied on Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari to argue that the bail standard under Section 37 is not equivalent to a trial on merits, and that the court must assess whether there are reasonable grounds to believe innocence - not whether guilt is established.
For the Respondent
The Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. K.K. Das, submitted that the recovery of 464 grams of heroin unequivocally constitutes a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. He emphasized that the statutory mandate under Section 37 is designed to prevent accused persons from continuing illicit activities while on bail. He cited State of Kerala v. Rajesh and Union of India v. Mohd. Nawaz Khan to argue that courts must adopt a restrictive approach, particularly where the societal harm from narcotics is profound and well-documented by the Supreme Court.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the evolving jurisprudence of the Supreme Court on bail in drug offences. It emphasized that Section 37 operates as an exception to the general bail regime under the CrPC and imposes a dual condition: (i) the Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose bail, and (ii) the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail.
"The expression used in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) is ‘reasonable grounds’. The expression means something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged..."
The Court held that the recovery of 464 grams of heroin, a quantity well above the threshold for commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, creates a strong prima facie case against the petitioners. It further noted that the Supreme Court has consistently held that offences under the NDPS Act carry grave societal consequences, including widespread addiction among youth and the funding of organized crime.
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the absence of independent witnesses or lack of trafficking evidence justified bail. It clarified that the standard under Section 37 is not whether the accused is innocent, but whether there are reasonable grounds to believe so. In this case, the evidence of possession of a large quantity of heroin, without any plausible explanation, did not meet that threshold.
The Court also distinguished between "prima facie case" and "reasonable grounds to believe innocence," affirming that the former is insufficient to deny bail under Section 37, but the latter is mandatory to grant it. Here, the court found no such reasonable grounds.
The Verdict
The bail application was rejected. The Court held that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners were not guilty of the offence under Section 21(c) and Section 25 of the NDPS Act. The petitioners shall remain in judicial custody pending trial. No bail is granted.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Reasonable Grounds Require Substantial Evidence of Innocence
- Practitioners must now demonstrate more than procedural irregularities or lack of corroboration to satisfy Section 37
- Mere absence of eyewitnesses or chain-of-custody gaps will not suffice unless they create a plausible doubt about guilt
- The burden is on the accused to present facts that reasonably suggest non-involvement
Commercial Quantity Triggers Strict Bail Regime
- Recovery of any quantity classified as "commercial" under the NDPS Act triggers the mandatory conditions of Section 37
- Courts will not grant bail merely because the accused has no prior record or claims to be a user rather than a dealer
- The societal harm rationale under Durand Didier and Rajesh remains binding and non-negotiable
Judicial Discretion Is Constrained by Statutory Mandate
- High Courts cannot grant bail under NDPS Act by applying general bail principles from CrPC
- Failure to apply Section 37 correctly invites appellate intervention, as seen in Mohd. Nawaz Khan
- Any bail order that does not explicitly record satisfaction of both conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) is liable to be set aside
