Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes two conditions for the grant of bail (the “twin conditions”): (1) The court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence; and (2) The court must be satisfied that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. These conditions apply to offences involving commercial quantities and certain other specified offences.

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 438 CrPC) empowers the High Court and the Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail. When a person has reason to believe that they may be arrested for a non-bailable offence, they may apply for a direction that in the event of such arrest, they shall be released on bail [citation:5].

Anticipatory bail is not absolutely barred in NDPS cases. However, the twin conditions under Section 37 apply. The Supreme Court has held that anticipatory bail in NDPS cases is generally not granted in serious cases involving commercial quantities. However, where the prosecution’s case is fundamentally flawed or there is no material to link the accused to the recovery, anticipatory bail may be granted [citation:15].

The first condition requires the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence. This does not mean proving innocence beyond a reasonable doubt — but it requires a strong prima facie case of innocence. The accused must demonstrate that the prosecution’s case is weak, implausible, or lacking in evidence [citation:15].

The second condition requires the court to be satisfied that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. This is an assessment of the accused’s character, antecedents, and the likelihood of recidivism. The absence of criminal antecedents is a guiding factor in forming this view [citation:3].

The twin conditions apply to: (1) Offences involving commercial quantities of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances; (2) Offences under Section 27A (financing illicit traffic); and (3) Certain other specified offences. The bar is most rigorous in cases involving commercial quantities [citation:15].

The standard of proof required is “reasonable grounds for believing” — this is lower than proof beyond a reasonable doubt but higher than a mere suspicion. The accused must present credible evidence to demonstrate that they are not guilty and not likely to re-offend [citation:15].

The absence of direct recovery from the applicant is a significant factor. Courts have consistently held that where there is no material to link the applicant with the recovery of contraband, the rigours of Section 37 may not apply. The Delhi High Court has held that “in the absence of any direct recovery from the applicants and considering that the investigation is already complete, no purpose would be served by subjecting the applicants to incarceration” [citation:2][citation:7].

In a recent case, the Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to applicants where their names and contact details appeared on seized parcels, but no contraband was recovered from them directly. The Court noted that despite the seizure of their mobile devices, the investigating agency had failed to trace any financial transactions, communications, or digital evidence that could connect the applicants to the seized contraband or the alleged conspiracy. The Court emphasized that “mere mention of names on parcels was insufficient to demonstrate a live nexus” [citation:7].

The Calcutta High Court held that “in the absence of any contraband recovered from the petitioner, the mandatory bail-bar in Article 37 NDPS Act does not apply.” The Court exercised its discretion under Section 439 CrPC (now Section 483 BNSS) to grant bail, noting that the petitioner’s name arose only in a co-accused’s statement and no contraband was seized from him [citation:11].

No. The Supreme Court has clarified that bail cannot be granted merely on a finding of the absence of possession of the contraband on the person of the accused. Such a finding does not absolve the court of the level of scrutiny required under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. However, the absence of recovery is a strong factor that courts consider while assessing whether the twin conditions are satisfied [citation:8].

Allegations of payment through online banking are often used by investigating agencies to establish a financial link between the accused and the contraband. However, courts require more than mere allegations. The prosecution must establish a live nexus between the alleged payment and the recovery of contraband. Mere bank transactions, without evidence of the purpose or knowledge of the accused, are insufficient to attract the rigours of Section 37 [citation:7].

To establish a link through online banking, the prosecution must demonstrate: (1) The specific transactions; (2) The connection between those transactions and the contraband; (3) The accused’s knowledge of the illegal nature of the transactions; (4) Communication or digital evidence linking the accused to the conspiracy. In the absence of such evidence, the court may find that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case [citation:7].

Yes, anticipatory bail can be granted where the only evidence against the applicant is alleged bank transactions, without any direct recovery from them. The Delhi High Court has held that “mere mention of names on parcels was insufficient to demonstrate a live nexus” and that the absence of financial transactions or digital evidence connecting the applicants to the contraband weighed in favour of granting bail [citation:7].

A “live nexus” means a direct, demonstrable connection between the accused and the contraband. It is not enough to show that the accused’s name appeared on a parcel or that they had financial transactions. The prosecution must establish that the accused was actively involved in the drug trafficking operation, had knowledge of the contraband, and had a role in its transportation or distribution [citation:7].

The Delhi High Court emphasized that “mere mention of names on parcels was insufficient to demonstrate a live nexus, especially when the actual recovery of such prior parcels was not made, and their content remained unknown.” The Court noted that the investigating agency had failed to trace any financial transactions, communications, or digital evidence that could connect the applicants to the seized contraband or the alleged conspiracy [citation:7].

Factors that negate a live nexus include: (1) No direct recovery from the accused; (2) Mere presence of the accused’s name or contact details on a parcel; (3) Absence of digital evidence (chats, call logs) connecting the accused to the conspiracy; (4) No financial trail linking the accused to the contraband; (5) The accused’s name appearing only in a co-accused’s statement; (6) Failure of the investigating agency to establish the accused’s knowledge of the contraband [citation:7][citation:11].

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail in an NDPS case where the applicants’ names and contact details appeared on seized parcels, but no contraband was recovered from them directly. The Court held that “when there is no material to link the applicants with the recovery of the commercial quantity of contrabands, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply” [citation:7].

The Calcutta High Court held that “in the absence of any contraband recovered from the petitioner, the mandatory bail-bar in Article 37 NDPS Act does not apply.” The Court noted that the petitioner’s name arose only in a co-accused’s statement and no contraband was seized from him. The Court exercised its discretion under Section 439 CrPC (now Section 483 BNSS) to grant bail [citation:11].

In Sukhwinder Singh v. State of Haryana, the Punjab & Haryana High Court granted anticipatory bail where the petitioner was not named in the FIR and no recovery was effected from him. The petitioner was implicated solely on the basis of a co-accused’s disclosure statement. The Court held that the disclosure statement of a co-accused is not admissible evidence and that no prima facie case was made out against the petitioner [citation:1].

The common thread is the absence of a live nexus between the applicant and the contraband. Where the prosecution’s case rests solely on a co-accused’s statement, or on the mere presence of the applicant’s name on a parcel, and no contraband is recovered from the applicant, courts have been inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The rigours of Section 37 are not attracted in such cases [citation:1][citation:7][citation:11].

The grounds for arguing that Section 37 is not attracted include: (1) No contraband recovered from the applicant; (2) No material to link the applicant with the recovery; (3) The applicant’s name appears only in a co-accused’s statement; (4) Absence of digital or financial evidence connecting the applicant to the contraband; (5) The investigation is complete and no purpose would be served by incarceration; (6) The applicant has no criminal antecedents [citation:2][citation:7][citation:11].

The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora (2026) clarified that delay in trial or prolonged incarceration cannot, by itself, justify the grant of bail in cases involving commercial quantities where the mandatory twin conditions under Section 37 are not met. The Court held that while Article 21 remains a foundational constitutional guarantee, it cannot be invoked to completely bypass an express legislative mandate [citation:4][citation:9].

Yes. Non-compliance with mandatory procedures such as Section 42 (recording/forwarding information) or Section 50 (search procedures) can be grounds for bail. Improper sampling or seizure can also warrant bail. These procedural violations can be argued to show that the prosecution’s case is fundamentally flawed [citation:15].

The key arguments include: (1) No contraband was recovered from the applicant; (2) The applicant is not named in the FIR; (3) The applicant is implicated solely on the basis of a co-accused’s statement, which is inadmissible evidence; (4) There is no live nexus between the applicant and the contraband; (5) No digital or financial evidence connects the applicant to the contraband; (6) The investigation is complete; (7) The applicant has no criminal antecedents; (8) The applicant is a permanent resident and not a flight risk [citation:1][citation:7].

The application should be filed under Section 482 BNSS before the Sessions Court or High Court. It should include: (1) Court details; (2) Applicant details; (3) FIR/complaint details; (4) Grounds for apprehension; (5) Grounds for bail; (6) Undertakings; (7) Prayer. The application must be supported by an affidavit and relevant documents [citation:5][citation:14].

When an anticipatory bail application is filed and the final hearing will take time, interim protection can be sought. The application should include a prayer for interim protection, demonstrating that arrest is imminent. The court may direct that the applicant not be arrested and that they cooperate with the investigation until the next hearing [citation:10].

The court may impose conditions such as: (1) Making yourself available for interrogation as required; (2) Not tampering with evidence; (3) Not influencing witnesses; (4) Not leaving India without permission; (5) Surrendering your passport; (6) Reporting to the police station periodically; (7) Furnishing a personal bond with sureties [citation:5][citation:14].

The following documents should be annexed: (1) Copy of the FIR; (2) Copy of the complaint, if any; (3) Proof of identity and address; (4) Proof of permanent residence; (5) Evidence of no criminal antecedents; (6) Any evidence showing false implication; (7) Medical records, if applicable; (8) Any other supporting documents [citation:5].

The application should specifically address the online banking allegations by: (1) Denying any knowledge of the transactions; (2) Explaining the nature of the transactions, if legitimate; (3) Pointing out the absence of any evidence linking the transactions to the contraband; (4) Highlighting the absence of digital evidence connecting the applicant to the conspiracy; (5) Arguing that mere bank transactions, without more, do not establish a live nexus [citation:7].

The Supreme Court emphasized that the twin conditions under Section 37 are mandatory and must be positively considered while granting bail. The Court held that recording satisfaction under Section 37 is not a procedural formality but a jurisdictional requirement [citation:4].

The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for granting bail primarily on considerations that ordinarily govern criminal proceedings, including prolonged custody and perceived weaknesses in the prosecution case, without recording the mandatory satisfaction required under Section 37. The judgment reinforced that constitutional sympathy cannot replace statutory compliance [citation:4].

The Supreme Court held that constitutional courts retain the power to grant bail where prolonged incarceration and extraordinary delay render continued detention incompatible with Article 21. However, the Court clarified that this power is to be exercised in truly exceptional situations, not as a routine matter [citation:4].

The Supreme Court extended the constitutional reasoning to the NDPS Act, observing that Section 37 cannot be interpreted so rigidly as to justify indefinite pre-trial detention. The Court emphasized that constitutional courts must remain alive to situations where procedural delay effectively converts the presumption of innocence into prolonged punishment before conviction [citation:4].

The Supreme Court clarified that delay in trial or prolonged incarceration cannot, by itself, justify the grant of bail in cases involving commercial quantities where the mandatory twin conditions under Section 37 are not met. The Court held that Article 21 cannot be invoked to completely bypass an express legislative mandate [citation:4][citation:9].

Yes. Where no contraband is recovered from the applicant and there is no material to link them with the recovery, the rigours of Section 37 may not apply, and anticipatory bail may be granted [citation:2][citation:7].

The absence of direct recovery is a significant factor. Courts have held that where there is no material to link the applicant with the recovery, the twin conditions under Section 37 are not attracted [citation:7].

Yes, where the only evidence is alleged bank transactions without any direct recovery from the applicant. Courts require a “live nexus” between the accused and the contraband, which mere bank transactions do not establish [citation:7].

A “live nexus” means a direct, demonstrable connection between the accused and the contraband. It is not enough to show that the accused’s name appeared on a parcel or that they had financial transactions [citation:7].

Key arguments include: no recovery from the applicant; applicant not named in the FIR; implication solely on the basis of a co-accused’s statement; no live nexus; no digital or financial evidence connecting the applicant; investigation complete; no criminal antecedents [citation:1][citation:7][citation:11].

The application should be filed under Section 482 BNSS before the Sessions Court or High Court, including court details, applicant details, FIR details, grounds for apprehension, grounds for bail, undertakings, and prayer [citation:5].

The court may impose conditions such as making yourself available for interrogation, not tampering with evidence, not influencing witnesses, not leaving India without permission, surrendering your passport, and reporting to the police station [citation:5][citation:14].

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail where the applicants’ names appeared on seized parcels, but no contraband was recovered from them. The Court held that “when there is no material to link the applicants with the recovery of the commercial quantity of contrabands, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply” [citation:7].

The Calcutta High Court held that “in the absence of any contraband recovered from the petitioner, the mandatory bail-bar in Article 37 NDPS Act does not apply” [citation:11].

Article 21 can be invoked in exceptional situations where prolonged incarceration becomes manifestly unjust. However, it cannot be invoked to completely bypass the statutory mandate under Section 37 [citation:4].

Two conditions for bail under Section 37 NDPS: (1) not guilty; (2) not likely to re-offend.

A direct, demonstrable connection between the accused and the contraband.

A pre-arrest court order directing that if arrested, the person shall be released on bail immediately.

The quantity of contraband that attracts the stringent provisions of Section 37.

A statement made by one accused implicating another. Generally inadmissible as evidence.

The provision governing anticipatory bail in the new criminal procedure code.

Temporary protection from arrest while the anticipatory bail application is pending.

At first sight; based on the first impression.