Bail Granted Without Section 37 Satisfaction Is Perverse: Rajasthan High Court Cancels Bail in Tramadol-Alprazolam Haul

A search and seizure on 01.06.2021 recovered large quantities of tramadol and alprazolam tablets and capsules, tramadol injections and syrup; the respondent, linked through co-accused statements and a rent agreement, was accused under Sections 8/22 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act (paras 3, 18/1, 18/3). On 26.08.2021 the Special Judge, NDPS Act granted him bail, finding no recovery from him and treating the goods as medicines; the State's cancellation application was dismissed on 27.09.2021 (paras 2, 16-17). The State moved the High Court about a year later; the respondent objected to the delay and to the State challenging bail in only some of the four FIRs against him (paras 6-7).

Relying on Neeru Yadav and Y v. State of Rajasthan, the Court said a bail order may be set aside if it was illegal, perverse or ignored relevant factors, apart from supervening circumstances (paras 11-12, 15). Section 37 requires a prima facie satisfaction that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to reoffend (paras 13-14). The Special Judge recorded nothing on commercial quantity, though it was evident from the FIR and seizure memo; wrongly called the substances medicines, when Entries 238ZH and 178 list them as psychotropic substances; and wrongly held the premises not in his possession, when a rent agreement, disclosure statements and Section 164 statements showed constructive possession prima facie (para 18). Bail also preceded the charge sheet (para 19). Tofan Singh did not help, as the State relied on other circumstantial evidence, as in Mohit Agarwal (paras 20-22). An ADGP's affidavit explained the delay (para 23). After bail, two investigating officers were transferred, one being made an accused under Section 59, so tampering could not be ruled out (paras 24-26).