The Delhi High Court granted bail to a man accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, observing that continued incarceration without trial progression serves no meaningful purpose. The Court was dealing with a bail application arising from an FIR registered for alleged possession of ganja slightly above the commercial quantity. The Court observed that “strict application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act may not be justified and warrants a more nuanced consideration.”
The case stemmed from an FIR registered after police officials allegedly received a secret tip-off regarding a man supplying ganja in various parts of Delhi. Acting on the information, a raiding team intercepted the applicant near Todapur Village. Upon spotting the police, he allegedly tried to flee, but was apprehended. While nothing incriminating was found on his person, a search of a bag he dropped led to the recovery of ganja weighing just over the prescribed commercial quantity. He was taken into custody and has remained in judicial custody since.
The counsel for the applicant argued that the recovery was only marginally above the threshold of commercial quantity and therefore, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act should not be strictly applied. Relying on various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, it was submitted that prolonged pre-trial custody without progress in trial proceedings violates the principles of fair justice.
Further, the petitioner’s counsel pointed to the absence of videographic or photographic evidence during the recovery despite the operation occurring in a public place. He also raised concern over the lack of independent witnesses, arguing that this casts serious doubt on the authenticity of the recovery.
Additionally, counsel submitted that the trial has been extremely slow, with only three out of eighteen prosecution witnesses examined in nearly three years, and that the delay was not attributable to the petitioner. Previous interim bail granted was honoured without any misuse, and the petitioner had no criminal antecedents, which made him a fit candidate for regular bail.
Opposing the bail plea, the State submitted that 21.5 kg of ganja was recovered from the conscious possession of the accused, which attracts the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It was argued that all procedural safeguards, including Section 42 and Section 50 of the NDPS Act, had been followed. The State contended that such serious offences deserve no leniency, especially when the commercial quantity threshold had been crossed.
The Court took note of the petitioner’s prolonged custody and observed that only three of the eighteen listed prosecution witnesses had been examined, which indicated significant delay in trial. The Court stated, “The petitioner has already undergone nearly three years of incarceration, and the progress of the trial has been exceptionally slow... This prolonged pre-trial detention, combined with the sluggish pace of proceedings, are contributory factors in favour of granting bail.”
It was also noted that the recovery was only marginally over the statutory commercial quantity of ganja, and the Court remarked, “In such a scenario, the strict application of the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act may not be justified and warrants a more nuanced consideration.”
The Court further observed that there was no material to suggest the petitioner posed a risk of reoffending or tampering with evidence. The contraband was already in the prosecution’s custody, and most witnesses were official personnel.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the bail application, directing that the applicant be released on furnishing a bail bond and surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The Court clarified that this order was not to be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and granted liberty to the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail if the petitioner was found involved in any repeat offence.
Case Title: Vinay Sharma vs. State Govt. Of Nct of Delhi
Case No.: BAIL APPLN. 1626/2025
Coram: Justice Arun Monga
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Aditya Aggarwal, Manas Aggarwal, Naveen Panwar, Mohd. Yasir, Manvi Gupta
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Priyanka Dalal
Picture Source :
