Delhi High Court Grants Bail
The Delhi High Court has held that the rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act does not apply strictly in cases where the quantity of contraband recovered from an accused is only marginally above the prescribed commercial quantity.
The applicant in this case was apprehended with a bag containing 21.508 kg of ganja.
Section 37 states that bail should not be granted to an accused unless the accused is able to satisfy the twin conditions, i.e. reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence and that the accused would not commit an offence or is not likely to commit an offence, if granted bail.
While dealing with the applicant’s bail plea, Justice Arun Monga observed,
“The quantity of Ganja allegedly recovered from the applicant is only marginally above the threshold of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. The commercial quantity for Ganja is 20 kilograms, whereas the alleged recovery in the present case is 21.508 kilograms. In such a scenario, the strict application of the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act may not be justified and warrants a more nuanced consideration.”
Applicant claimed that recovery of contraband lacks any videographic or photographic documentation, even though the raiding team had access to mobile phones and other technological means.
He further argued that there was no independent witness to support the recovery, despite the applicant being apprehended in a public place.
Such omissions, it was argued, raise serious doubts about the genuineness of the recovery process.
APP appearing for the State however, opposed the bail plea, contending that in light of the quantity of contraband recovered—21.508 kilograms of Ganja—from the conscious possession of the applicant, the rigours of Section 37 are attracted.
The High Court referred to Ashok Kumar @ Lala vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2024) where it was held that the alleged recovery of 1 kg and 100 grams of Charas, being only marginally above the threshold of commercial quantity, warranted scrutiny at the trial stage to determine whether the quantity was actually commercial or intermediate.
It thus observed, “While the prosecution reliance on Section 37 is ultimately a matter for trial, the submissions made on his behalf do not really present a credible case for denial of bail.”
The Court further observed that Applicant had already undergone nearly 3 years incarceration, and the progress of the trial had been exceptionally slow, with only 3 out of 18 prosecution witnesses examined so far.
“This prolonged pretrial detention, combined with the sluggish pace of proceedings, are contributory factors in favour of granting bail,” said the Court and granted relief.
Appearance: Mr. Aditya Aggarwal, Mr. Manas Aggarwal, Mr. Naveen Panwar, Mohd. Yasir and Mr. Manvi Gupta, Advs. For petitioner; MS. Priyanka Dalal, App for State. Si Rajendra Meena, Anti-Narcotics, Squad West, Delhi.
Case title: Vinay Sharma v. GNCTD
Case no.: BAIL APPLN. 1626/2025