1 Kg Heroin Recovery Triggers Section 37 Bar; Clean Antecedents cannot act as Protector: P&H High Court Denies Bail Despite No Personal Recovery
Case Name: Mahesh @ Jatin v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 18 March 2026
Citation: CRM-M-55265-2025
Bench: Justice Manisha Batra
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that in cases involving commercial quantity of contraband, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply with full force, and bail cannot be granted unless the Court is satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence. Absence of personal recovery or alleged procedural lapses cannot be examined at the bail stage.
Summary: The petitioner sought regular bail in an NDPS case arising out of FIR dated 28.05.2025 registered under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner was apprehended along with co-accused while travelling on a scooter, and recovery of 1 kg heroin (commercial quantity) was effected from a polythene bag thrown by a co-accused.
From the personal search of the petitioner, only a weighing machine was recovered. The petitioner was implicated further on the basis of disclosure statements, wherein he allegedly admitted purchasing heroin from co-accused and selling it onward for profit.
The petitioner argued that no contraband was recovered from him personally, that mandatory provisions under Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act were violated, and that he had clean antecedents. It was further submitted that investigation was complete and trial would take considerable time.
The State opposed the bail plea, highlighting the recovery of commercial quantity and contending that the rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act were attracted. It was further argued that the petitioner had criminal antecedents and could indulge in similar offences if released.
The High Court observed that recovery of commercial quantity (1 kg heroin) attracts the statutory embargo under Section 37. It held that there was nothing on record to satisfy the twin conditions required for grant of bail namely, that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.
The Court further clarified that arguments regarding non-compliance of procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act have a bearing on merits and cannot be adjudicated at the stage of bail.
Considering the gravity of the offence, the nature of recovery, and statutory restrictions, the Court held that the petitioner did not deserve the concession of regular bail.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition and denied regular bail to the petitioner.