In Narender v. The State (NCT of Delhi) (BAIL APPLN. 4050/2026, decided 3 November 2026), Justice Mini Pushkarna of the High Court of Delhi granted regular bail under Section 483 read with Section 528 of the BNSS in an NDPS case arising from FIR No. 590/2025, PS Bhalswa Dairy. The police alleged recovery of 712 grams of heroin from the petitioner’s house, but the FSL report found diacetylmorphine in only about 54 grams of the substance — an intermediate quantity. That single forensic finding dissolved the statutory bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The case in one view
| Case | Narender v. The State (NCT of Delhi), BAIL APPLN. 4050/2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | High Court of Delhi, Mini Pushkarna J |
| Decided | 3 November 2026 |
| Provisions | Sections 21, 25, 29 and 37, NDPS Act; bail under Section 483 read with Section 528 BNSS |
| Outcome | Regular bail granted on conditions |
The prosecution’s case
The case began on 29 August 2025, when 300 grams of heroin was allegedly seized from a co-accused, who named the petitioner as her supplier. A search of the petitioner’s house followed, in which the police claimed recovery of 712 grams of heroin, and a third accused was arrested. The chargesheet invoked Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. On the seizure memo’s figures, this was comfortably a commercial-quantity case, attracting the twin conditions of Section 37 — the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to offend on bail.
What the FSL report actually said
The defence pointed to the FSL report dated 7 April 2026: the bulk of the seized material did not test positive for diacetylmorphine at all, showing only degraded compounds. The State’s answer was that the substance was degraded heroin and likely contained the drug. The court went with the laboratory, not the label:
From the judgment (para 12): on the forensic finding that only about 54 grams contained diacetylmorphine, “the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable.”
The judgment drew on persuasive authority, including an Allahabad High Court decision of 2022 and an earlier Delhi High Court bail order, both cited in the order itself, treating the actual narcotic content established by analysis as what determines the quantity classification for bail purposes.
The custody-and-trial arithmetic
With Section 37 out of the way, the familiar bail considerations took over, and they ran in the petitioner’s favour:
The defence had also argued that no independent witnesses joined the house search and that videography of the search under Section 105 BNSS was not supplied; the State called the videography requirement directory. The court did not need to decide those points to grant bail — they remain live for trial.
Why this matters in Delhi NDPS practice
Seizure memos speak in gross weights; Section 37 operates on narcotic content. Where a quantitative FSL analysis shows the actual drug content below the commercial threshold, the entire complexion of a bail application changes — from the near-insurmountable twin conditions to the ordinary triad of flight risk, tampering and reoffending, each of which can be met by conditions. For defence counsel, obtaining and scrutinising the quantitative report is often the single most consequential step in an NDPS bail brief. For investigators, the decision underlines that the chemical analysis, not the panchnama, will carry the day in court.
The court imposed the usual architecture of conditions — attendance, address and mobile-number disclosure, no contact with witnesses, no fresh offences — on a bond of Rs 50,000 with one surety, and clarified that its observations were confined to the bail stage.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the quantity classification change?
The seizure memo recorded 712 grams said to be heroin, which would be a commercial quantity. The FSL report of 7 April 2026, however, found that only around 54 grams of the material actually contained diacetylmorphine, with the rest comprising degraded compounds. The court proceeded on the forensically established content, which fell in the intermediate range, so the twin conditions of Section 37 NDPS did not apply.
What role did the stage of trial play?
A significant one. The court noted that charges had not yet been framed, that twenty-three prosecution witnesses remained to be examined, and that the petitioner had already spent nearly a year in custody with satisfactory conduct, including surrendering on time when earlier interim bail expired. Prolonged pre-trial custody with no early end in sight weighed in favour of release.
Did the parity principle matter here?
Yes. A co-accused in the same case had been granted bail in March 2026. While parity is never automatic, the combination of a similarly placed co-accused on bail, the intermediate-quantity finding and the distance from trial completion supported the petitioner's case.
What conditions were imposed?
Release on a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with one surety of the same amount, with conditions to appear on every date, reside at the recorded address and intimate any change, keep a working mobile number registered with the investigating officer, not contact or influence witnesses, not tamper with evidence, and commit no offence while the case is pending.