Regular bail -- NDPS case – Petitioner was carrying a black bag on his shoulder – Petitioner and co-accused arrested carrying 3 kilograms each of Opium – Petitioner cannot be denied bail merely on the ground that he belong to Bihar -- Moreover by offering the surety amount to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/-, the apprehension of the petitioner absconding is met to an extent – Petitioner is behind bars for more than 1 ½ years -- Conclusion of trial is likely to take time -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case -- Story put forth by the prosecution gives an arguable issue to the petitioner -- Nothing on record to show that the concession of bail is likely to be misutilised -- Petitioner granted bail subject to furnishing surety/sureties to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.12.2020

Recovery of 70 strips of Clovidol (each strip containing 10 tablets) i.e. total 700 intoxicant tablets – NDPS case – Regular bail -- No other case pending or registered, petitioner in custody since 16.01.2020 -- Recovery effected marginally higher than commercial quantity -- Challan was presented on 10.07.2020, trial of the case would take time to conclude -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.11.2020

Recovery of commercial quantity of 70 injections of Pheniramine Maleate 10 ml Avil and 70 injections of Buprenorphine Rexogesic 2 ml each – NDPS case – Regular bail -- Provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are mandatory in nature, however, departure can certainly be made in case the conditions contained in the aforesaid section itself are satisfied -- First condition being that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the application and Second condition being that the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable doubts for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and both these conditions are co-existent -- State was granted opportunity and time was also granted for filing of reply but the same was not filed -- So far as the condition of existence of any reasonable ground for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence is concerned, would be a debatable issue as it is also subject to fulfillment of ingredients of first proviso to Rule 66(2) of NDPS Rules. In case Rule 66(2) of NDPS Rules is applied in the case then the same would be a reasonable ground and something more than prima facie ground to believe at this stage that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence -- Apart from this, the fact that the petitioner is in custody for more than two years and is not involved in any other case at present is also a relevant factor. Petitioner granted the concession of regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.11.2020

Regular bail -- Petitioner in custody for the last two years and one month; recovery effected from the petitioner is marginally more than the commercial quantity and that trial is not proceeding because of limited working of the courts due to Covid-19 pandemic, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars -- Petitioner directed to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.11.2020

Recovery of 950 intoxicating tablets -- NDPS case -- Regular bail -- Over a period of nearly two years, only five witnesses have been examined by prosecution -- Apart from it, there is no other NDPS case against the petitioner or under any other penal laws -- Petitioner is in judicial custody since 09.12.2018 – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2020

Regular bail -- NDPS case – Only 5 witnesses have been examined so far out of total 15 witnesses – Court found that the investigation of the case is complete, but the trial is progressing at a slow pace -- Outbreak of global pandemic COVID-19 may further delay the conclusion of trial -- Petitioner in judicial custody 29.7.2018 and his further detention may not be necessary for any useful purpose -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2020

Regular bail -- NDPS case – Petitioner, is in custody for 1 year and 2 months – Section 37 of the NDPS Act bars grant of bail to an accused, who has committed the offence u/s 19, 24, 27-A and to accused from whom recovery of commercial quantity of the contraband is effected -- Petitioner has been indicted on the basis of the statement of co-accused in custody and not arrested on the spot -- No recovery from the petitioner, except empty plastic pouches and zippers – Petitioner is first offender and aged person -- Whether or not the petitioner had conspired and was the ultimate beneficiary/receiver of the contraband is to be established on the basis of evidence led during the trial -- Charges are yet to be framed -- Trial will take time to conclude, especially due to prevailing situation of Covid-19 -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.10.2020

Recovery of 53.1 kg Poppy Straw -- NDPS Case -- Regular bail -- Marginally above the commercial quantity – Petitioner remained in detention for almost 07 months – Not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act -- Charges have been framed, trial is likely to take its own considerable time due to ongoing Covid-19 Pandemic -- Regular bail allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.10.2020

Recovery of 350 grams intoxicant powder, having salt Diacetylmorphine – NDPS case -- Regular bail -- Regular trials are not being taken up by the trial Courts -- Accordingly, considering the long custody of about 2 years, 3 months and 15 days, there being no other case against the petitioner and the trial not likely to be concluded in the near future on account of Covid-19 pandemic, High Court deemed it appropriate to admit the petitioner on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.09.2020

Suspension of sentence pending appeal – NDPS case -- Conviction for R.I. for 10 years along with fine of Rs.1 lac – 66 kgs poppy husk allegedly recovered from the cabin of the truck – Appeal admitted along with stay of recovery of fine on 20.02.2020 – Applicant/appellant no. 1 already undergone 02 years, 03 months and 03 days of actual sentence as on 19.08.2020 -- He is not involved in any other NDPS case, though he is involved in the offence under IPC -- Appeal is of the year 2020, it may take some time in its final culmination -- Application allowed -- Remaining sentence of the applicant-appellant No.1 ordered to be suspended, during the pendency of the appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.09.2020

Recovery of 650 tablets of Clovidol-100SR – NDPS case -- Regular bail -- Charge has been framed but no witness has been examined -- Marginally above the commercial quantity and conclusion of the trial is likely to take long time -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.09.2020

Recovery of 1500 capsules of Ridlay Parvorin-Spas Tramadol -- NDPS case -- 15 witnesses to be examined, petitioner in custody for more than one year -- Keeping in view that the trial will take some time for its conclusion, there is no need to detain the petitioner any longer -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2020

Recovery of 400 strips of TREDOL-100 – NDPS case -- Petitioner in custody since 03.07.2019 – Out of 12 witnesses, only 3 witnesses have been examined till date – Bail opposed on the ground that recovery from the petitioner is commercial in quantity and as per Section 37 of the NDPS Act, he is not entitled for concession of bail – Held, trial will take some time for its conclusion, there is no need to detain the petitioner any longer -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2020

Recovery of 400 strips of TREDOL-100 – NDPS case -- Petitioner in custody since 03.07.2019 – Out of 12 witnesses, only 3 witnesses have been examined till date – Bail opposed on the ground that recovery from the petitioner is commercial in quantity and as per Section 37 of the NDPS Act, he is not entitled for concession of bail – Held, trial will take some time for its conclusion, there is no need to detain the petitioner any longer -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2020

Recovery of 980 loose intoxicant tablets containing salt of Alprazolam – NDPS case -- 5 grams above the commercial quantity – Keeping in view order granting concession of bail to the co-accused and the fact that the trial will take some time for its conclusion, there is no need to detain the petitioner any longer -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2020

Recovery of 255 gram of heroin – NDPS case -- Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody for more than 13 months – Till date, no witness has been examined, the trial is not likely to conclude in near future and the recovery, which has been effected from the petitioner, is marginally above commercial quantity and no case pending -- Petitioner be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.08.2020

Disclosure statement -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Recovery of heroin weighing 322 grams and 66 mili gram from two accused – Disclosure statement implicating the petitioner as the person from they borrowed the heroine -- Recovery of 53 grams 63 mili grams from petitioner -- Prima facie, due to inadmissibility of disclosure statements of co-accused in evidence against the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be said to be in conscious possession of commercial quantity of heroin allegedly recovered from his co-accused and Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act will not be applicable qua the petitioner – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.07.2020

Regular bail -- NDPS matter -- Petitioner is in custody since 1.1.2019 and the investigation is already complete and the charges have already been framed on 4.5.2019 and out of 11 witnesses cited by the prosecution none has been examined till date -- It is not the case of the prosecution that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail then he may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses or he may repeat the offence -- Apart from that even the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with which may result in vitiating the trial itself and becomes a good ground for presuming that petitioner is not guilty and therefore, it would be certainly a fit case where departure can be made under the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.02.2020

Recovery of four bags containing 35 kgs. each of poppy-husk from co-accused -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Petitioner implicated on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused and there is no other material/evidence connecting him with his co-accused and the narcotic substances recovered -- Petitioner was not arrested from the spot and no recovery was made from him -- Rigors of Section 37 (1)(b) of the NDPS Act are not applicable qua the petitioner and in any case the same stand satisfied by due implication – Trial against him is likely to take long time -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.01.2020