In Anil v. State of Rajasthan and connected bail applications (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application Nos. 8518, 7160, 7781 and 7782 of 2026, 2026:RJ-JD:43422, decided on 9 September 2026), the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur granted regular bail to four accused charged under Sections 9A and 25 of the NDPS Act. The decision turns on a distinction that repeatedly decides NDPS bail applications: the stringent twin conditions of Section 37 apply to specified offences involving narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances — not to every prosecution under the Act.
The Applications
Four accused sought regular bail in a case arising from the recovery of chemical substances alleged to be covered by the NDPS regime, with charges under Sections 9A and 25 of the NDPS Act and related provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. One of them faced an additional allegation of possessing tramadol tablets and opium. The accused had been in custody since 7 May 2026; the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet stood filed.
The Decisive Classification
Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu granted bail to all four petitioners. The reasoning proceeds from the structure of the NDPS Act itself: the substances recovered were controlled chemicals — precursors regulated under Section 9A — and not narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. Section 37 of the Act, which requires the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and is not likely to offend while on bail, attaches to the specified class of offences; it does not blanket every prosecution brought under the Act.
For the accused found with 10.1 grams of tramadol tablets and 28.2 grams of opium, the Court noted the quantities were below commercial quantity — so even for him, the Section 37 twin conditions were not attracted, and ordinary bail principles applied.
The Ordinary Parameters, Applied
Bail was granted on personal bonds of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties of ₹50,000 each.
The Quantity Ladder in NDPS Bail
| Recovery | Bail framework |
|---|---|
| Controlled substances (Sections 9A / 25A) | Ordinary bail principles; Section 37 rigours not attracted |
| Small quantity of narcotic drug | Ordinary bail principles; offence itself carries lighter punishment |
| Intermediate quantity (between small and commercial) | Ordinary bail principles under Section 483 BNSS |
| Commercial quantity of narcotic drug / psychotropic substance | Section 37 twin conditions apply in addition to ordinary considerations |
Why This Matters
Prosecutions frequently describe every NDPS recovery in the language of Section 37, and remand courts sometimes proceed as though the twin conditions govern universally. This judgment is a clear, current illustration of the correct approach: the first question in every NDPS bail application is classification — what exactly was recovered, and in what quantity — because that answer determines which bail regime applies before any argument on merits begins. Defence and prosecution alike should engage with the FSL report and the notified schedules at the threshold.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation. The cited order should be read in full from the official record.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are controlled substances under the NDPS Act?
Controlled substances are chemicals notified by the Central Government under Section 2(viid) — typically precursor chemicals used in manufacturing narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. Section 9A empowers the Centre to regulate them, and Section 25A punishes contravention of such orders. They are distinct from narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances themselves.
Why did Section 37 not bar bail in this case?
The Court found the recovered substances were controlled chemicals, not narcotic drugs. Section 37's twin conditions attach to specified offences, including those involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. Since the offences alleged did not fall within that class, bail fell to be decided on ordinary parameters.
One accused also had tramadol and opium — why was he still granted bail?
The recovery from that accused was 10.1 grams of tramadol tablets and 28.2 grams of opium, both below commercial quantity. For less-than-commercial quantities, the Section 37 rigours do not apply, and the ordinary bail considerations — completed investigation, custody period, antecedents — governed.
What conditions were imposed?
Each petitioner was directed to furnish a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties of ₹50,000 each, the standard structure for securing presence at trial after bail under Section 483 BNSS (formerly Section 439 CrPC).