Delhi HC denies interim bail to drugs smuggler for attending his sister’s wedding

The Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim bail to a man accused of trafficking narcotic substances and possessing over 40 kg of ganja. The accused sought interim bail for 20 days on humanitarian grounds to attend his sister’s wedding ceremony in Bihar this month.
A vacation bench of Justice Tejas Karia dismissed the plea, stating that a strong case for denying interim bail was made out given the gravity of the offence alleged against the petitioner-accused, the quantity of narcotics involved and his prior criminal antecedents.

Delhi Police opposed the interim bail plea, stating that the petitioner, arrested in the FIR registered in 2024 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, is a habitual offender. The police counsel said the accused was arrested for possessing more than 40 kg of ganja, which is a “commercial quantity” under the law, and there were other brothers who could perform the religious ceremonies at the sister’s wedding.

In its order passed on June 17, the court observed that the petitioner was arrested for possessing a “commercial quantity” of ganja, and material on record showed that there were other brothers who could perform the religious ceremonies at the wedding.
The court stated that bail under the NDPS Act was governed by stringent requirements that override general principles of bail, and therefore, the power to grant interim bail had to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.
“The restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are mandatory in nature and override the general principles governing the grant of bail.

“Consequently, interim bail or regular bail in cases under the NDPS Act may be granted only in rare and exceptional circumstances, upon the Court being satisfied that compelling reasons exist and that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act stand duly satisfied,” the court said.
The court concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any exceptional or compelling circumstances in this case, and was therefore not entitled to be released on interim bail at this stage.
“Having regard to the gravity of the offence alleged against the petitioner, the quantity involved, and the antecedents attributed to him, this Court is of the view that a strong case has been made out for denial of interim bail,” it ordered.