S. 37 NDPS Act | 'Reasonable Grounds' Not Equivalent To 'Proved' Under BSA; It Would Set At Naught Bail Power: J&K&L High Court
Interpreting the stringent bail provisions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has clarified that the expression “reasonable grounds” contained in Section 37 cannot be stretched to mean 'proved' under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
The Court cautioned that equating “reasonable grounds” with the standard of proof under the BSA would 'set at naught' the power vested in a court to grant bail pending a trial.
A bench of Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani explained that the phrase occupies a middle ground, something more substantial than mere suspicion or conjecture, yet falling short of full-fledged proof.
“The expression “reasonable grounds” would obviously mean something more than mere suspicion and conjectures and something less than proof. It would necessarily mean such grounds or material that would prima facie enable a person of ordinary prudence to believe that the accused is or is not guilty,” the Court remarked.
These observations were made while deciding a bail application filed by a businessman from Doda, who had been booked under the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused had financed illegal drug trafficking through small monetary transactions.
The case against him primarily rested on statements of co-accused persons and his own statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which the defence contended were inadmissible unless they resulted in the recovery of contraband or the discovery of new incriminating facts.
While examining the bail plea, Justice Wani undertook a detailed analysis of the phrase “reasonable grounds” as appearing in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The Court held that adopting an overly rigid interpretation would erode judicial discretion and infringe upon the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty. It emphasized that bail jurisprudence requires a careful balance between the gravity of the offence and the rights of the accused.
The Court acknowledged that offences relating to narcotics are undeniably grave in nature. However, it underscored that seriousness alone cannot justify the continued incarceration of an individual when the material on record does not prima facie satisfy the statutory threshold.
On facts, the Court noted that the prosecution had failed to place any direct or cogent evidence linking the petitioner to the seized contraband. It further observed that the alleged minor financial transactions were not shown to have any clear nexus with the illicit drug trade. The absence of any previous criminal antecedents also weighed in favour of the accused.
Dealing specifically with the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, Justice Wani clarified that while the provision seeks to curb the grant of bail in cases involving commercial quantities, it cannot be applied in a manner that eclipses the fundamental right to liberty. The Court reiterated that “reasonable grounds” must be assessed objectively and not mechanically.
Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, wherein it was held that bail is not meant to be punitive and that pre-trial detention should be resorted to only when it is imperative to ensure a fair trial.
Emphasising judicial restraint and fairness, the Court observed that discretion in bail matters must be exercised judiciously, keeping in view both the interests of justice and the rights of the individual.
Concluding that the material placed on record did not disclose reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was involved in financing drug trafficking, the High Court allowed the bail application. The accused was directed to be released on bail, subject to furnishing sureties and complying with conditions imposed by the trial court.
Case Title: Arfaz Mehboob Tak v. Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)