{"id":1435,"date":"2026-10-26T13:55:25","date_gmt":"2026-10-26T08:25:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/advmriduljindal.com\/blog\/?p=1435"},"modified":"2026-10-26T13:55:25","modified_gmt":"2026-10-26T08:25:25","slug":"ndps-bail-commercial-quantity-section-37","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/advmriduljindal.com\/blog\/ndps-bail-commercial-quantity-section-37\/","title":{"rendered":"NDPS Bail in Commercial Quantity Cases: Section 37 Twin Conditions Explained"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

Quick answer:<\/strong> If an NDPS case involves a commercial quantity<\/em> (or offences under Sections 19, 24 or 27A), Section 37 of the NDPS Act adds two extra conditions for bail: the Public Prosecutor must be heard, and, if the Prosecutor opposes, 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. Courts still grant bail where the record shows real gaps in the prosecution case, or where custody has become long and the trial is not moving, but the Supreme Court has said these grounds must be examined on the facts of each case.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Bail in a drugs case is very different from bail in an ordinary criminal case. Once the quantity seized crosses the “commercial quantity” limit, the court cannot release the accused only because the offence is triable or because investigation is over. Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) places a statutory limit on the court’s power. This guide explains what the twin conditions mean, how the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court have applied them, and which factors usually matter in a bail hearing in Delhi, Ghaziabad and Noida. For an overview of how NDPS matters are handled, see our NDPS cases page<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What does Section 37 of the NDPS Act say?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Section 37(1)(a) makes every offence under the NDPS Act cognizable. Section 37(1)(b) says that a person accused of an offence under Section 19 (embezzlement of opium by a cultivator), Section 24 (external dealings), Section 27A (financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders), or any offence involving commercial quantity, shall not be released on bail or on bond unless:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the bail application; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. where the Public Prosecutor opposes it, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Section 37(2) adds that these limits apply in addition to<\/em> the ordinary limits on bail. Bail applications are now filed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (for example, Section 483 BNSS, formerly Section 439 CrPC, before the Special Court or the High Court), but Section 37 continues to apply on top of those provisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What is “commercial quantity” and why does it matter?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    The NDPS Act divides quantities into small, intermediate and commercial. The limits for each drug are fixed by the Central Government’s notification S.O. 1055(E) dated 19 October 2001, as amended. Some commonly seen commercial-quantity limits are 250 grams for heroin and morphine, 1 kg for charas (hashish), 20 kg for ganja, and 100 grams for cocaine. Section 37 applies only when the quantity is commercial (or the offence falls under Sections 19, 24 or 27A). For small and intermediate quantities, bail is decided on ordinary principles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    For mixtures, the Supreme Court held in Hira Singh v. Union of India<\/em>, (2020) 20 SCC 272, that the weight of neutral substances in the mixture is also counted, not only the pure drug content. This is why the exact quantity recorded in the seizure memo and the FSL report is usually the first thing examined in a bail hearing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What does “reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty” mean?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    The court is not asked to acquit the accused at the bail stage. In Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari<\/em>, (2007) 7 SCC 798, the Supreme Court explained that “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds: there must be substantial probable causes for believing the accused is not guilty, but the court does not record a final finding on guilt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/em>, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, the Court cautioned that reading Section 37 literally would make bail practically impossible. It held that the court only needs to be reasonably satisfied, on a broad look at the material, that the prosecution case has real weaknesses. At the same time, in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal<\/em>, (2022) 18 SCC 374, the Court set aside a bail order that did not engage with the twin conditions, making it clear that the satisfaction must be based on the record, not on general grounds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Are both conditions required?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Yes. The two limbs (not guilty, and not likely to commit an offence while on bail) are cumulative. In State of Kerala v. Rajesh<\/em>, AIR 2020 SC 721, the Supreme Court set aside a bail order because the High Court had not recorded satisfaction on both limbs. In practice, this means a bail application in a commercial-quantity case usually deals with two separate questions: weaknesses in the evidence, and the applicant’s antecedents and likelihood of repeating the offence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Which procedural lapses are commonly raised at the bail stage?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Courts look at whether the material collected by the police or the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) is reliable. Points that are often argued include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n