Introduction:

In Meena v. State [BAIL APPLN. 1694/2025], the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, delivered a significant ruling that reinforces the principle that contraband recovered separately from different accused persons cannot be aggregated and attributed to a single accused for the purpose of invoking the stringent bail restrictions under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The petitioner, Meena, was apprehended with 100 grams of heroin, an intermediate quantity, yet the prosecution sought to attribute to her an additional 1097 grams recovered from four other co-accused, thereby attempting to bring her case within the ambit of “commercial quantity” and deny her bail. The Court rejected this approach, granting her bail while underscoring the necessity of individualized consideration in such matters.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

Counsel for the petitioner, Advocates Mr. Javed Khan, Mr. Irfan Firdous, and Mr. Monish Ali Khan, submitted that the recovery from Meena was limited to 100 grams of heroin, which falls under the intermediate quantity category and is far below the threshold for commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. They argued that attributing to her the recovery made from other accused persons was both legally unsustainable and contrary to established jurisprudence. The petitioner had been in judicial custody for approximately one year and four months, and the prolonged detention was neither justified nor necessary for the purpose of investigation. It was further contended that the Investigating Officer failed to provide her with written communication of the grounds of arrest, violating her constitutional rights under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and statutory provisions. Moreover, the search and seizure process lacked transparency, as no photography or videography was conducted, raising questions about procedural compliance under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and related safeguards. Counsel emphasized that two co-accused, from whom intermediate quantities had also been recovered, had already been granted bail, reinforcing the parity principle in bail considerations.

Arguments of the Prosecution:

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Utkarsh, assisted by SI Satwant Singh of the Crime Branch Cyber Cell, opposed the bail application, asserting that the petitioner was not merely a passive participant but a regular supplier of heroin and a crucial link in an interstate narcotics distribution network. They argued that the recovery from co-accused should be considered collectively as part of a single conspiracy under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, thereby enabling the aggregation of recoveries to cross the “commercial quantity” threshold. The prosecution stressed that commercial quantity offences under the NDPS Act attract the rigors of Section 37, which makes bail extremely restrictive and subject to twin conditions—(i) that the court is satisfied there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty, and (ii) that she is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. According to the prosecution, the petitioner’s alleged role in the larger network posed a continued threat to public interest and justified her continued detention.

Court’s Analysis and Judgment:

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, after a careful examination of the material on record, held that the prosecution’s approach of attributing recoveries from multiple accused persons to a single accused without specific evidence linking her to those recoveries was impermissible. The Court observed that the petitioner was apprehended with 100 grams of heroin, clearly an intermediate quantity as per the NDPS Act’s prescribed thresholds. It was categorically stated that “It cannot be the case that where Heroin is recovered from the accused persons separately, it can be collectively attributed to the Applicant.” The Court emphasized that the recovery from the petitioner must be considered independently unless there is concrete evidence of joint possession or direct involvement in the contraband recovered from others.

The Court further noted that two co-accused, who were also found in possession of intermediate quantities, had already been granted bail. The principle of parity in bail jurisprudence, which mandates that similarly situated accused should be treated alike, was applicable in this case. Given the absence of compelling evidence justifying continued incarceration, and considering that the petitioner had already spent more than 16 months in judicial custody, the Court found no further necessity to keep her detained for investigative purposes.

The Court rejected the prosecution’s attempt to stretch the conspiracy provisions under Section 29 NDPS Act to aggregate separate recoveries without specific proof of shared possession or coordinated control. It stressed that while the NDPS Act is a stringent statute aimed at curbing the menace of narcotics, its provisions cannot be applied in a manner that undermines fundamental fairness or the principle of individualized criminal responsibility.

Consequently, the Court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions to ensure her availability during trial. She was directed to furnish a personal bond of ₹35,000/- along with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The order also directed her to cooperate with the investigation, refrain from tampering with evidence, and not leave the country without prior permission. This judgment not only reiterates the importance of evaluating recoveries individually in NDPS cases but also strengthens safeguards against the misuse of Section 37 to unduly prolong detention in intermediate quantity cases.