Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Poppy Husk Offenders: A Landmark Decision on Intermediate Quantity Drug Cases
Key Overview
In a significant judgment dated December 9, 2025, the Delhi High Court granted regular bail to two individuals, Deepak and Arjun, who were facing narcotic drug charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. Justice Amit Mahajan’s decision in Bail Applications 4234/2025 and 4248/2025 emphasizes that the rigid constraints of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not automatically apply to cases involving intermediate quantities of narcotics, fundamentally reshaping bail jurisprudence for non-commercial drug offences in India.[1][2][3]
The Facts of the Case
Circumstances of Arrest and Recovery
The two bail applicants were apprehended on July 21, 2025, following a chance encounter with their vehicle at Police Station Narela in Delhi. During a search of the car, police recovered two plastic bags containing a total of 20.81 kilograms of Poppy Husk—specifically 7.70 kg in one bag and 13.11 kg in another. This recovery led to the registration of FIR No. 513/2025 under Sections 15, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act, with the applicants being arrested immediately upon discovery of the contraband.[2][1]
The prosecution’s case rested on the recovery itself and video documentation made during the seizure process in compliance with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to the State’s submissions, the car belonged to Arjun’s father, who had reportedly been involved in a similar case in Haryana, thereby creating an alleged pattern of criminal conduct.[3][1]
Investigation Status
By the time the bail applications were heard, the investigation had been fully completed and a chargesheet had already been filed against both applicants. Notably, the investigation proceeded without any independent witnesses joining the proceedings, a fact that became critical to the defense’s arguments before the High Court.[1][2]
Legal Framework: Section 37 of the NDPS Act
The Twin Conditions Test
Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent bail conditions for specified offences, particularly those involving commercial quantities of narcotic drugs. The provision creates what courts have termed the “twin conditions,” which require courts to be satisfied on two cumulative grounds before granting bail:[4][5][2]
- Reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence
- Reasonable grounds to believe that the accused will not commit any further offence while on bail[5][2][4]
These twin conditions represent a higher threshold than the general bail provisions under the Criminal Procedure Code, reflecting legislative intent to create a significant deterrent effect against drug trafficking and abuse. The Supreme Court has consistently held that these conditions are mandatory in nature and cannot be overlooked even when procedural deficiencies exist in the prosecution’s case.[4][5]
Commercial versus Intermediate Quantities
A critical distinction under NDPS jurisprudence exists between commercial and intermediate quantities. According to the government’s official notifications, Poppy straw—the category to which Poppy Husk belongs—has the following thresholds:[6]
- Small Quantity: 1 kg
- Commercial Quantity: 50 kg
Any quantity falling between these thresholds constitutes an intermediate quantity. The recovered 20.81 kilograms in this case clearly fell within the intermediate range, being substantially above the small quantity threshold but significantly below the commercial threshold.[7][8][3][1]
The judicial approach to intermediate quantity cases has evolved considerably. The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently reaffirmed in October 2025 that possession of 7.033 kg of poppy husk constitutes an intermediate quantity, holding that “the rigorous conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable in such cases.” Similarly, courts have recognized that “in intermediate quantity, the rigors of the provisions of Section 37 may not be justified” and that when the quantity is less than commercial, the rigid requirements of Section 37 are considerably relaxed.[8][9][3]
The Court’s Reasoning and Decision
Applicants’ Arguments
The defense counsel presented a multi-faceted argument challenging the prosecution’s case:[1]
- False Implication: The applicants contended they had been wrongfully implicated in the case
- Absence of Independent Witnesses: No credible independent witnesses supported the prosecution’s allegations
- Ambiguous Video Evidence: While recovery video was made under BNSS 2023 compliance, it did not definitively establish that the recovery was made from the applicants themselves
- Procedural Irregularities: Delay in filing applications under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and delayed transmission of samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) after 24 days[1]
State’s Counter-Arguments
The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that:[1]
- A large quantity of contraband had been recovered
- The recovery was supported by video documentation
- The vehicle belonged to Arjun’s father, who had prior involvement in similar cases in Haryana
Justice Mahajan’s Analysis
Justice Amit Mahajan’s judgment exemplified judicial restraint combined with a principled approach to bail. The court made several critical observations:[1]
On the Bar of Section 37: The court explicitly held that “the alleged recovery made from the applicants is of intermediate quantity. Undoubtedly, the accused cannot be admitted on bail solely for the reason that the commercial quantity of contraband was not recovered.“ This statement reaffirmed that the automatic bar of Section 37 does not apply merely because the recovered quantity is substantial—it must be commercial quantity.[1]
On Procedural Issues: While the applicants raised concerns about delay in Section 52A applications and belated FSL reports, the court declined to adjudicate these matters at the bail stage, determining that “such matters are a matter of trial” and not appropriate for consideration in bail proceedings. This pragmatic approach prevented preliminary procedural concerns from prolonging judicial custody.[1]
On Clean Antecedents: The court noted that both applicants were of clean antecedents, having no prior criminal history, despite the State’s claim regarding Arjun’s father’s involvement in another case. The absence of prior criminal conduct is traditionally viewed favorably in bail jurisprudence, suggesting a lower likelihood of recidivism.[10][1]
The Critical Holding: Justice Mahajan stated unequivocally: “In the opinion of this Court, the applicants’ judicial custody is no longer required. The defence and the allegations would be subject matter of trial and cannot be commented upon at this stage.“ This formulation reflects the principle that bail is not a determination of guilt or innocence but rather an assessment of the need for continued custody.[1]
Terms and Conditions of Bail
Bail Amount and Sureties
The court ordered bail release on strict conditions:[1]
- Personal bond: ₹25,000 each from both applicants
- Sureties: Two sureties of ₹25,000 each for each applicant
- Approval: Subject to satisfaction by the Trial Court, Duty Magistrate, or Link Magistrate
Operational Restrictions
Five comprehensive conditions were imposed to ensure the applicants’ continued cooperation and prevent commission of further offences:[1]
- No Tampering or Intimidation: The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the case facts, nor tamper with evidence in any manner
- Travel Restrictions: The applicants shall not leave the country without Trial Court permission
- Court Appearance: Mandatory appearance before the Trial Court on every hearing date, unless exempted
- Address Notification: The applicants must provide their residential address and notify authorities before any change of residence
- Communication Access: Upon release, the applicants must provide their mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer/Station House Officer and keep their phones switched on at all times
Consequences of Violation
The court inserted a critical clause permitting the State to seek cancellation of bail in the event of any new FIR, DD entry, or complaint lodged against the applicants. This provision acts as a deterrent against potential recidivism while maintaining the balance between liberty and public safety.[1]
Non-Prejudicial Observations
Justice Mahajan clarified that “any observations made in the present order are for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.“ This standard disclaimer prevents the bail order from prejudicing the actual trial proceedings.[1]
Significance and Implications
Reinforcement of Intermediate Quantity Jurisprudence
This judgment constitutes a vital reaffirmation that the stringent Section 37 framework was designed specifically for commercial quantity offences, not all drug cases. By explicitly holding that intermediate quantity cases must be evaluated on their individual merits without the rigid twin-condition test, the court has provided clarity for future bail applications in similar circumstances.[3][8][4]
Procedural Safeguards and Evidence Standards
The judgment implicitly validates the video documentation requirements under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which mandates electronic recording of search and seizure procedures. However, it appropriately recognizes that such procedural compliance, while important, does not automatically resolve all evidentiary questions about the actual source of contraband recovery.[11][1]
Applicability of Section 52A Irregularities
By declining to treat Section 52A procedural irregularities as grounds for immediate bail, the court adopted the Supreme Court’s established position that procedural deviations in sample handling and FSL transmission are matters for trial adjudication, not bail determination. The Supreme Court has held that while such irregularities may attract scrutiny, they do not constitute grounds for bail absent proof of serious prejudice.[12][13][4]
Balance Between Public Safety and Individual Liberty
The comprehensive bail conditions demonstrate the court’s commitment to reconciling two competing imperatives: ensuring the applicants’ appearance and preventing tampering with evidence, while avoiding unnecessary prolonged custody before trial. This balanced approach reflects evolving judicial philosophy that recognizes bail as a right, not a privilege, particularly where procedural safeguards are implemented.[14][1]
Broader Context in NDPS Jurisprudence
Recent Trend Toward Liberalized Bail in Intermediate Cases
The Delhi High Court’s approach aligns with an emerging pan-India judicial consensus favoring more liberal bail considerations in intermediate quantity cases. The Himachal Pradesh High Court observed that “it is a settled position of law that grant of bail is a rule whereas its refusal is an exception. The question whether bail should be granted in a case has to be determined on the basis of the facts and circumstances of that particular case.” This principle directly opposes the notion that drug quantity alone should determine bail outcomes.[3]
Absence of Independent Witnesses
A significant gap in the prosecution’s case was the absence of independent witnesses to the recovery proceedings. While not explicitly determinative, courts have increasingly recognized that credible independent witness documentation strengthens the prosecution’s narrative and builds confidence in the investigation’s integrity. The lack of such witnesses, combined with intermediate quantity, weakened the case for continued custody.[2][3]
Impact of Chargesheet Filing
The fact that investigation was complete and chargesheet filed provided substantial relief in bail jurisprudence. The Supreme Court has held that once a chargesheet is filed and trial is in progress, the duration of custody becomes an increasingly important factor in bail decisions. The court essentially recognized that keeping the applicants in custody while awaiting trial—a process that could extend years—would constitute unjustifiable pre-trial detention.[15]
Conclusion
Justice Amit Mahajan’s decision in the bail applications of Deepak and Arjun represents a measured, principled exercise of judicial discretion that affirms several critical propositions in NDPS jurisprudence. First, it definitively establishes that Section 37’s twin-condition test applies exclusively to commercial quantity offences, not intermediate quantities. Second, it demonstrates that investigations with procedural irregularities but completed chargesheet filings warrant bail consideration based on overall case circumstances rather than categorical prohibitions. Third, it exemplifies the proper judicial approach: recognizing that bail decisions must balance legitimate state interests in investigation and trial against constitutional protections of personal liberty.[3][1]
For the broader legal community, this judgment provides welcome clarity on an area that had witnessed inconsistent application across different courts. By anchoring bail jurisprudence firmly in statutory language and distinguishing between quantity categories, the Delhi High Court has contributed meaningfully to predictability and fairness in NDPS proceedings. As drug offences continue to occupy significant judicial attention, such reasoned approaches—grounded in statutory framework rather than formulaic application of stringent provisions—serve the ultimate purpose of criminal justice: ensuring that punishment is proportionate, procedures are fair, and liberty interests are protected within the boundaries of public safety requirements.
- 59509122025BA42342025_205040.pdf
- https://advocatepooja.com/bail-in-ndps-cases-in-india-understanding-the-legal-landscape/
- https://bhattandjoshiassociates.com/bail-under-ndps-act-when-small-intermediate-and-commercial-quantities-are-involved/
- https://www.numenlaw.com/irregular-compliance-of-section-52a-of-the-ndps-act-is-no-ground-for-bail.php
- https://blog.ipleaders.in/interpretation-of-section-37-of-the-narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985/
- https://dor.gov.in/punishment-offences
- https://www.bailorders.com/blog/understanding-bail-in-intermediate-quantity-ndps-cases-of-mohmmad-naved-javed-khan-analysis-of-cri-ba-no-993-2024/
- https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/himachal-pradesh-high-court/himachal-pradesh-high-court-ruling-opium-poppy-intermediate-quantity-and-section-37-ndps-act-308113
- https://updates.manupatra.com/roundup/contentsummary.aspx?iid=50091
- https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2025/3/48545.pdf
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvZecDKxbDQ
- https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/43297/43297_2024_14_30_58266_Judgement_06-Jan-2025.pdf
- https://www.scobserver.in/supreme-court-observer-law-reports-scolr/re-trial-in-ndps-cases-cannot-be-ordered-to-cure-procedural-lapses-kailas-v-state-of-maharashtra/
- https://blog.primelegal.in/delhi-high-court-released-the-petitioner-on-bail-in-the-case-under-ndps-act-and-held-that-trial-is-likely-to-take-time-thus-cannot-be-kept-in-prison-for-long/
- https://www.scobserver.in/journal/2025-supreme-court-half-yearly-review-bail/
- https://sdcsupremecourtlawyers.com/supreme-court-guidelines-to-grant-bail-in-ndps-cases/
- https://juriscentre.com/2025/08/26/section-37-of-ndps-act-1985/
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lL0FeLemOs
- https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/2791/2791_2025_16_43_58632_Judgement_22-Jan-2025.pdf
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HXLJzvRSUA
- https://police.py.gov.in/Brief on Narcotics Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances – Chapter 8.pdf
