Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

The Supreme Court ordered the release on bail of two Amritsar doctors arrested by the NCB over 2000 Tramadol tablets. Their arrest memo, in a template format, recorded only that the grounds of arrest had been explained orally. Under Mihir Rajesh Shah, written grounds then had to be supplied two hours before production before the Magistrate, and that was not done (paras 20-22). Applying that ratio, the appellants were entitled to release (para 23).

The Rajasthan High Court refused regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS to a man accused of bringing 5.920 kg of hydroponic weed from Bangkok to Jaipur, although the quantity was below the 20 kg commercial quantity he relied on (paras 1-2, 5). Noting that a co-ordinate Bench had refused bail in such cases, it relied on the drug's potency, its value of about Rs 6 crore in the international market and his alleged link with a drug syndicate (para 5).

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur granted bail, on a second application, to a man accused of supplying opium in a CBN Pratapgarh case under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act; his counsel said nothing was recovered from him (paras 1, 3, 8). Following Akhlak @ Vilsan, the Court counted the opium found with riders of two motorcycles per accused, each below commercial quantity, and noted the possessors' bail and his custody of about a year (paras 6-7).

Granting bail to a woman held for over four years in an NDPS and Customs case involving more than a commercial quantity, the Supreme Court noted she had not cross-examined witnesses until she engaged her own counsel. It directed all trial courts to tell accused persons of their right to legal-aid counsel and to record the offer, the response and the action taken before witnesses are examined (paras 3-13).

The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to an accused in a 248 kg poppy husk case despite the Section 37 bar, finding prima facie non-compliance with the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022: the sample sent for chemical examination was drawn by the police at the spot, not in the presence of a Magistrate, and the bags were neither homogenised nor marked (paras 15-19, 24-28).

The Rajasthan High Court recalled a condition requiring an NDPS convict to deposit a Rs 1 lakh fine as part of the order suspending his sentence. Because of poverty he could not pay, and he stayed in jail despite the release order of 07.10.2025 (paras 9, 12, 15). Following CBI v. Ashok Sirpal, the Court held that a deposit condition the convict cannot comply with may defeat his right of appeal and violate Article 21 (paras 13-14).

The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a man accused of carrying 6.220 kg of hydroponic weed in a Customs Air Intelligence Unit case at Jaipur International Airport (paras 1, 6). As the recovery was below commercial quantity, the Court held that the Section 37 NDPS restriction on bail did not apply and, following the Supreme Court's order in Puranmal Jat, released him without commenting on the merits (paras 6-9).

The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur granted bail to a man prosecuted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence in a hydroponic weed case in which 15.740 kg was allegedly found with a co-accused (paras 1-2). Noting that no contraband was recovered from him, the charge-sheet had been filed, he had no criminal antecedents, the trial would take considerable time and he had spent time in custody, the Court allowed bail without commenting on the merits (para 5).

The Orissa High Court granted bail to a young accused in a Customs case over 3.990 kg of hydroponic weed (paras 1, 6, 8). Finding no material for a THC-based commercial threshold, it held that marijuana, by whatever name called, is a cannabis product and, as flowering tops, ganja under Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act; the commercial limit is therefore 20 kg, and the Section 37 bar did not apply (paras 3-5).

The Delhi High Court set aside anticipatory bail granted to a man alleged to be part of the Thailand-based supply chain for 39.706 kg of hydroponic marijuana seized in an international cartel case (paras 104-105). The Special Judge had treated it as an ordinary bail matter without the Section 37 NDPS Act analysis that commercial quantity demands, and had turned the hearing into a mini-trial by recording the investigating officer's statement on oath (paras 60, 65, 86).

The Rajasthan High Court set aside adverse remarks, and a direction to initiate disciplinary and legal proceedings, recorded against a police officer by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jhalawar while acquitting the accused, because he was not heard before the remarks were made. On the principle of parity it gave the same relief to another individual named in the remarks who had not challenged them. The disciplinary authority may still examine the matter independently (paras 11, 14).

The Supreme Court dismissed a woman's appeal against her NDPS conviction for 23.5 kg of ganja. Drawing samples at the spot rather than before a Magistrate under Section 52A is not fatal where the seal, identity and chain of custody of the samples are intact, as held in Bharat Aambale, and the statutory minimum sentence for a commercial quantity left no room to reduce it (paras 23-32).