The Indian Supreme Court has once again clarified that anticipatory bail is never granted in cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
The observation was made by a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and KV Vishwanathan while hearing a special leave petition filed by Dinesh Chandra against the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court denying him anticipatory bail.
“We are not satisfied that any error has been committed by the High Court in refusing to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the NDPS case,”- Supreme Court bench.
Read also: All Opposition Party Leaders Move Supreme Court Against Bihar Voter List Revision
However, the bench said that the petitioner can surrender before the trial court and apply for regular bail, which will be considered on its merits in accordance with law.
The case was registered after the petitioner's name cropped up in the disclosure statements of the co-accused from whose possession 60 kg of poppy husk and 1.8 kg of opium were recovered. The co-accused described the petitioner as the supplier of the contraband.
The state strongly opposed the bail plea, saying that the quantity recovered was of commercial nature, hence a case under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is made out. It also argued that custodial interrogation was necessary to unravel the entire network and modus operandi.
The petitioner argued that he has been falsely implicated, as he was not named in the original FIR and was being implicated only on the basis of disclosure statements.
Read also: Supreme Court Stays Goa Sports Authority's Coach Selection After Woman Alleges Bias in Test
Despite the claim, the High Court found that the petitioner was specifically named as the supplier, and there were telephone records and bank transactions between the petitioner and the co-accused. Based on this, the High Court denied anticipatory bail, prompting the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view and refused to interfere.
“Grant of anticipatory bail in an NDPS case is a very serious issue. We therefore direct the State to consider whether it proposes to apply for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the accused,” the Supreme Court had remarked in the last hearing in September last year.
Read also: Why Supreme Court Rejected MBBS Student's Plea Against Termination of Admission, Then Sent to High Court
Interestingly, earlier this year, in a separate case, the Supreme Court had granted anticipatory bail to an accused found in possession of tapentadol hydrochloride tablets. The court said that since the substance is not listed in the schedule of the NDPS Act, it does not qualify as a psychotropic substance under the Act.
Case Title: Dinesh Chander vs State of Haryana
SLP (Crl) No. 9540/2025
Appearance: AOR Dheeraj Kumar Sammi and Advocate Sanjay S (for petitioner)