Dinesh Chander v. State of Haryana, 2025

The petitioner’s name came to light in the disclosure statements of co-accused persons from whose possession 60 kilograms of Doda Post and 1.8 kilograms of opium were seized.

According to the prosecution, the petitioner was identified as the supplier of the narcotic substances by the co-accused.

Notably, the petitioner was not named in the FIR but alleged to be involved based on these disclosure statements.

The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated and challenged the charges against him.

The prosecution opposed anticipatory bail, emphasizing that the contraband recovered fell within the commercial quantity category, necessitating custodial interrogation to unravel the modus operandi of the offence.

Additionally, the prosecution presented evidence of telephonic communication records and bank transactions linking the petitioner to the co-accused.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order denying anticipatory bail, concluding that no error had been committed in refusing the bail plea.

The bench emphasized that anticipatory bail is generally not granted in NDPS cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics due to the grave nature of such offences.

The Court reiterated its previous observations where it had expressed concern over the grant of anticipatory bail in NDPS cases and directed States to consider applying for cancellation of such bail where granted.

However, the Court clarified that the petitioner could surrender before the trial court and apply for regular bail, which would be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law.

The Court also noted an exception in a recent case where anticipatory bail was granted for possession of Tapentadol Hydrochloride, a substance not listed under the NDPS schedules.

The judgment underscores the strict approach adopted by the judiciary towards bail in NDPS cases, especially where commercial quantities are involved.

It highlights the judiciary’s reliance on the disclosure statements, telephonic records, and financial transactions to substantiate the prosecution’s case in the absence of direct evidence.

The Court’s refusal to grant anticipatory bail signals the need for strong safeguards against misuse of bail provisions in narcotics offences, reflecting the serious social impact of such crimes.

The allowance to apply for regular bail after surrender preserves the accused’s rights while balancing public interest and the need for effective investigation.

The judgment also provides clarity by distinguishing between substances under the NDPS schedule and those that are not, affecting bail eligibility.