Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

The Supreme Court granted bail to a man accused of possessing one kilogram of methamphetamine, after the Madras High Court had refused it. He had been in custody for almost two years, the trial had not begun though the chargesheet cites 46 witnesses, his arrest rested on co-accused statements whose worth is for the trial court, and his cardiac condition also weighed (paras 8-12). The merits and statutory safeguards were left open (para 11).

The Supreme Court made absolute the interim protection it had granted to a man accused under Section 15 of the NDPS Act as the registered owner of a vehicle allegedly used to carry 120 kg of poppy husk. He had joined the investigation, and on the totality of circumstances he was granted anticipatory bail, on conditions of cooperation and surrender of any passport (paras 3, 6-8).

The Supreme Court suspended the sentence of a man accused of escorting, on a motorcycle, a goods carrier from which the Narcotics Control Bureau allegedly recovered 697 kg of ganja. The co-accused in the goods carrier and his own pillion rider had been granted bail, and the NCB had not sought cancellation, so he was entitled to parity and to bail while his appeal is pending (paras 2-7).

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a man accused in a customs case at Babatpur airport, Varanasi, over 3.721 kg of what the Union of India called hydroponic weed, more potent than conventional cannabis (paras 3-5). As the recovery was below commercial quantity, Section 37 NDPS rigours did not apply, and, citing Manish Sisodia, the Court said bail is not withheld as punishment (paras 6-7).

The Supreme Court granted bail to two men alleged to have run a medical store that supplied Tramadol-combination capsules (Proxyco SPAS) to co-accused caught with 878 capsules weighing 412.66 grams in a Rajasthan NDPS case. They were apprehended only on the co-accused's statement, whether they sold the contraband is a matter for trial, they had no criminal antecedents and the chargesheet had been filed, so continued custody was not warranted (paras 3-4).

The Supreme Court set aside a Karnataka High Court order quashing an NDPS case against an accused who fled the spot where 32.615 kg of ganja was seized. The rulings it relied on, starting with Tofan Singh, concerned convictions or bail cancellation, not a pending trial (para 11). A Section 67 confession or Section 53A disclosure has no evidentiary value at trial, but it is material the investigator may use to gather further evidence (para 13). The case was restored (para 15).

The Supreme Court granted bail to a man held for about one year and four months in an NDPS case involving an alleged 27 kg of ganja-patti, after the Punjab and Haryana High Court had refused it. Weighing the period in custody and the time the trial will take, the Court kept in mind Article 21 and the principle of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and enlarged him on bail on conditions to be set by the trial court (paras 3, 5-6).

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur discharged an accused charged under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act. It held that statements of co-accused recorded under Section 67 cannot be used as confessions after Tofan Singh, and that a bare allegation that the accused ‘cooperated’ in the narcotic trade, with no overt act, transaction or recovery attributed to him, does not disclose abetment or conspiracy. The ₹68,500 found on him showed no nexus with the offence (paras 9-21).

The Madras High Court at Madurai granted bail to an air passenger after eight vacuum-sealed packets of suspected hydroponic weed were allegedly found under false bottoms in his trolley bags at Trichy airport (paras 2, 6). It extracted its own order of 02.09.2026, which had refused to treat hydroponic weed as commercial quantity on an untested THC claim, and weighed the quantity, the pending chemical analysis report, his custody and the absence of previous cases (paras 5-6).

The Supreme Court has acquitted two men convicted under the NDPS Act, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the seized substance was charas. The forensic report was discarded because the chain of custody of the samples was broken, including an unexplained five-day gap, and no other admissible evidence identified the substance.

The Madras High Court at Madurai granted bail to a man accused of bringing 5.20 kg of suspected hydroponic weed/ganja from Phuket through Kuala Lumpur to Trichy airport (paras 1-2, 12). With no chemical analysis report on record, it refused to treat the seizure as commercial quantity on the prosecution's THC argument; treated as ganja, the limit is 20 kg, so the Section 37 embargo was not applied at the bail stage (paras 8-10).

The Rajasthan High Court refused bail to a man found with 180 grams of mephedrone during a 10 pm search of a house without a warrant. The SHO had recorded the information and his grounds for not getting a warrant before the search and sent them to his superior, which was prima facie compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act (paras 12-15). As commercial quantity was involved, the Section 37 bar applied (para 17).