The Uttarakhand High Court affirmed that bail may be granted under the NDPS Act where the seized quantity falls below the commercial threshold, even in the presence of prior criminal antecedents, provided there are no past convictions. This judgment upholds prior precedent, clarifies bail standards under Sections 8 and 22 of NDPS Act, and serves as binding authority within Uttarakhand.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | BA1/1453/2025 of AHSAN Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010124432025 |
| Date of Registration | 11-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Uttarakhand; persuasive for other jurisdictions |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 |
| Questions of Law | Whether bail can be granted under NDPS Act when the seized quantity is below commercial quantity, even with previous criminal antecedents but no convictions. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that since the recovered quantity was below the commercial quantity defined under the NDPS Act and given that the applicant had no convictions in prior cases, bail is justified. The applicant’s prior involvement in similar cases does not, by itself, bar bail where no conviction exists. The bail is subject to certain standard conditions, and can be revoked on violation. The order balances societal concerns regarding habitual offenders with statutory thresholds for stricter bail. The Court permits prosecution to seek cancellation if bail conditions are breached. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Applicant was caught carrying 8 ml Tramadol Hydrochloride injection and 16.4 grams of Alprazolam tablets (below commercial quantity). Applicant has prior criminal antecedents but no convictions. Bail was opposed by State for being a habitual offender. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Uttarakhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that bail may be granted under NDPS Act when the quantity seized is below the commercial quantity, despite previous criminal antecedents, if there are no convictions.
- Establishes that absence of conviction, not merely past accusations, is determinative.
- Sets out standard conditions for bail, emphasizing regular court attendance and restriction on inducement/threats.
- Clarifies that prosecution retains liberty to seek bail cancellation if conditions are violated.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the FIR and noted the seized quantity of Tramadol Hydrochloride injection (8 ml) and Alprazolam tablets (16.4 grams) was below the commercial quantity as defined under the NDPS Act.
- Considered submissions that the applicant has previous criminal antecedents, but has not been convicted in any earlier case.
- Rejected the State’s opposition based solely on allegations of habitual offense, distinguishing between accusations and convictions.
- Held that in the absence of a conviction and where the quantity does not reach “commercial” definition, the applicant should be granted bail, subject to protective conditions.
- Provided for prosecution’s right to seek cancellation of bail on breach.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The seized quantity is much below the commercial quantity threshold.
- Although previous cases exist, the applicant has not been convicted in any.
- Prays for release on bail given these facts.
State
- Applicant is a habitual offender with similar cases registered against him.
- Opposed the bail application on these grounds.
Factual Background
The applicant was apprehended by the police after attempting to flee upon seeing officers. He was found carrying 8 ml of Tramadol Hydrochloride injection and 16.4 grams of Alprazolam tablets. The FIR was registered on 23.05.2025 under Sections 8 and 22 of the NDPS Act at Laksar Police Station, District Haridwar. The applicant was in custody, with the State opposing bail citing multiple previous cases of similar nature but no prior convictions.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court considered Sections 8 and 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
- Interpreted statutory thresholds delineating “commercial quantity” versus lesser quantities.
- Affirmed that stricter bail conditions and bars under the NDPS Act attach only to commercial quantity offences.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms existing principles relating to bail under the NDPS Act for non-commercial quantities.