Bail in NDPS case: 259.3 grams of morphine against a commercial quantity of 250 grams did not stop the Delhi High Court from granting relief, since the twin conditions of Section 37 do not stand in the way where the trial is unduly delayed.
New Delhi: Conditional liberty must take precedence over the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act in such circumstances, the Delhi High Court has held while granting bail in an NDPS case to an accused found with a quantity only marginally above the commercial limit [Sunny v. State of NCT of Delhi].
Justice Amit Bansal allowed BAIL APPLN. 2008/2026, filed under Section 483 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in FIR No. 172/2025 registered under Sections 8 and 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at the Crime Branch police station. The allegations against the accused are untested, and the Court has not recorded any finding on guilt.
Delay in trial against the twin conditions
The Court held that the twin conditions of Section 37 are not a bar to bail where the trial drags on:
“these requirements do not preclude the grant of bail on the grounds of undue delay in the completion of the trial.”
As for quantity, the recovery from the applicant was 259 grams, “which is marginally above the commercial quantity”, and the Court said that “the strict application of the rigours of the NDPS Act may not be justified”. It recorded that the possibility of the applicant committing a similar offence while on bail was remote, and found a prima facie case for bail on the grounds of absence of independent witnesses and prolonged delay in the trial.
How the case began
Police arrested the accused in July 2025 during routine patrolling, alleging that 259.3 grams of morphine was found in his possession. On his disclosure, they allegedly traced a co-accused, from whom 114 grams of morphine was allegedly recovered. The Sessions Court granted that co-accused bail in May 2026.
Terms of release
Release is on a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with one surety of the like amount. The accused must give his mobile number and permanent address to the Investigating Officer, appear before the Trial Court whenever the matter is listed, and not leave the country without the Court’s permission. He must also not commit any offence while on bail, and not directly or indirectly induce, threaten or make any promise to any person.
What the order is, and is not
This is a bail order and not a finding on guilt, and the presumption of innocence continues to apply at trial. What it applies is a settled line of reasoning: Section 37 does not freeze the Court’s hand where the trial is delayed and the recovery sits just over the line that separates commercial from intermediate quantity.
Case Title: Sunny v. State of NCT of Delhi [BAIL APPLN. 2008/2026]
Bench: Justice Amit Bansal, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: October 7, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Shan Ul Islam, S Islam and Dinesh Chandar for the accused; Additional Public Prosecutor Mukesh Kumar for the State