Recently, the Delhi High Court granted regular bail to a woman accused in an NDPS case, observing that heroin recovered from co-accused cannot be collectively attributed to her when the quantity seized from her possession is of intermediate nature. The Court stressed that continued custody was unnecessary as the trial was at a nascent stage.
The applicant, Meena, was arrested by the Cyber Cell, Crime Branch, Delhi, in April 2024 for alleged offences under Sections 21, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged that she was found with 100 grams of heroin, while co-accused were found with larger quantities, with the total recovery from all accused amounting to commercial quantity.
Meena claimed false implication, contending that the case was based on a fabricated disclosure statement from a co-accused. She alleged multiple procedural violations, including non-compliance with Sections 42, 50, and 57 of the NDPS Act, absence of independent witnesses during search, and failure to provide written grounds of arrest.
Counsel for Meena contended that the recovery from her possession was limited to 100 grams of heroin, an intermediate quantity that does not invoke the stringent bail bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It was argued that procedural safeguards under Section 50 were not followed, including mandatory videography or photography during the search, and that the arrest, made between sunset and sunrise, lacked proper authorization. With over a year spent in judicial custody, a completed investigation, and no necessity for further incarceration, continued detention would amount to pre-trial punishment.
The prosecution opposed bail, alleging that Meena was a regular supplier and an important link in a larger narcotics syndicate. It was submitted that the total recovery from all accused was 1,347 grams of heroin, falling within the commercial quantity category under Section 37. Electronic surveillance, call detail records, and WhatsApp chats were cited to establish her involvement, with concerns raised over potential absconding, re-offending, or tampering with evidence.
The Court carefully examined the nature of the recovery in this case. It pointed out that although the total quantity of heroin seized from all the accused combined was enough to qualify as a “commercial quantity” under the law, the actual amount recovered from Meena alone was only 100 grams, which falls under the category of an “intermediate quantity".
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “It cannot be the case that where heroin is recovered from the accused persons separately, it can be collectively attributed to the applicant".
In simple terms, the Court made it clear that just because several people are accused in the same case and the total quantity seized from all of them together is high, it doesn’t mean that every accused can automatically be held responsible for the entire quantity.
The Court also noted that the chargesheet in the case had already been filed, which meant that the investigation against the applicant was substantially complete. Therefore, there was no strong justification to keep Meena in custody any longer.
Additionally, the Court highlighted the principle of parity, since three other co-accused in the same case had already been granted bail, it would be unfair to deny the same relief to the applicant without a compelling reason.
Case Title: Meena vs. State(Government of Nct of Delhi)
Case No.: Bail Appln. 1694/2025
Coram: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Javed Khan, Irfan Firdous, Monish Ali Khan
Advocate for Respondent: Advs. Utkarsh (APP)
Picture Source :
