Manipur HC grants bail in NDPS case: twin test of Section 37 held met for passenger, over three and a half years in custody

Court: High Court of Manipur
Date of judgment: 10 September 2026
Case: BAIL APPLN./5/2024
Parties: Seiminthang Mate Vs Officer In Charge Of Tengnoupal Police Station
Bench: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GUNESHWAR SHARMA
Outcome: Allowed

Summary

The High Court of Manipur has granted bail to a man arrested on 16 December 2022 under Sections 21(c), 29 and 60(3) of the NDPS Act, 1985, involving an alleged commercial quantity of narcotics found in a vehicle in which he was travelling. Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma held that the twin test under Section 37 of the Act was satisfied on the facts recorded in the order, and that he had been in custody for more than three and a half years with the trial moving slowly.

The Court applied the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh @ Billa (2026 SCC Online SC 1058), para 17, and said that Section 37 must be satisfied in a commercial quantity case even where the plea is long incarceration. It found the test met on these facts: apart from being a passenger, nothing in the chargesheet was placed against the petitioner, he was not said to own the vehicle, and he had no earlier case.

According to the prosecution, personnel of the 20th Assam Rifles, Tengnoupal, found 49 packets of brown sugar, about 2.163 kg including packing material, hidden inside the seat of a Mahindra Bolero on 16 December 2022. The driver and owner is alleged to have gone to the toilet and fled into the jungle. The petitioner and another passenger were arrested and an FIR was registered at Tengnoupal Police Station. A chargesheet was filed, Special Trial No. 34 of 2023 was registered before the Special Judge (NDPS), and the case stood at the stage of charge hearing. The Special Judge rejected his bail plea on 28 December 2023, noting that a commercial quantity had been recovered from the vehicle in which the two arrested persons were travelling. He then moved the High Court under Section 439 CrPC read with Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The judgment was reserved on 15 May 2026 and delivered on 10 September 2026.

The question before the court

Whether bail can be granted in a commercial quantity NDPS case on the ground of long custody and slow trial without satisfying the twin test of Section 37
Whether the twin test of Section 37 was satisfied for an accused who was a passenger in the vehicle from which the contraband was seized
Effect of the presumption under Section 35 of the NDPS Act when the case rests only on that presumption

What each side argued

For the petitioner: he was only a passenger who took a lift from the driver, who escaped, and he was arrested to cover the failure to catch the driver. Nothing showed conscious possession, ownership of the vehicle or of the contraband, so the Section 35 presumption was not automatic and Section 37 did not bar bail.
For the petitioner: he had been in custody for over three and a half years, the trial was slow, the Special Judge (NDPS) at Chandel also held charge of the Family Court at Lamphelpat, Imphal, more than 60 km away, and he had no past case. He cited two High Court orders and Rajadurai v. State of Tamil Nadu. He also alleged violation of Sections 50 and 57 of the Act.
For the State: in a commercial quantity case the twin test of Section 37 must be passed. The seizure was from the vehicle in which the petitioner travelled, so the presumption of conscious possession under Section 35 applied. Whether he was a mere passenger was for trial, the FSL report was positive for heroin, and long incarceration alone is no ground.
For the State: Section 50 did not apply to a chance recovery by Assam Rifles without prior information, from a vehicle. It relied on Union of India v. Vigin K. Varghese (2025 INSC 1316), para 18.

The court's decision

The Court recorded the admitted facts: custody for more than three and a half years since 16 December 2022, a slow trial, a first-time offender with no similar case, no material in the chargesheet beyond the fact that he was travelling in the vehicle from which a commercial quantity was seized, and nothing to show he owned the vehicle.

On the law, the Court noted that some Supreme Court decisions stress personal liberty under Article 21, but held that the position, pending a larger Bench, is settled by State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh @ Billa, para 17: in a commercial quantity case the twin conditions of Section 37 must be considered. It reproduced paras 14 and 15 of its own judgment of 8 September 2026 in Lunkhogin Kipgen v. Officer-in-Charge, NAB PS, Imphal (2026:MNHC:195), which says that long incarceration alone is not a ground for bail and that the rigor of Section 37 must be satisfied even in a trial with no substantive progress. The Court held that, at least for Manipur, the twin test must be satisfied irrespective of long incarceration.

Applying that, the Court noted that apart from being a passenger in the vehicle from which a commercial quantity was seized, there was no credible material in the chargesheet against him, ownership of the vehicle was not attributed to him, and the whole case was proceeding solely on the statutory presumption under Section 35, which is rebuttable. On these facts the Court was of the view that the case satisfied the twin test under Section 37. It added that it was undisputed that he had been in custody for over three and a half years without much progress in the trial, which could be treated as long incarceration.

The petitioner was released on bail on a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh) with a surety, a gazetted officer, of like amount, to the satisfaction of the Special Judge (NDPS), Chandel. The conditions are that he appear on every date fixed or directed by the Court; not try to influence persons acquainted with the facts; not tamper with any material or evidence; not leave Manipur without the leave of the Special Judge (NDPS), Chandel; and surrender his passport, if any, to that Court. The State may approach the High Court for cancellation if any condition is violated. Bail Appln. No. 5 of 2024 was allowed and disposed of.

The Court added that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the case, that its observations are confined to the bail application, and that the Trial Court is free to form its own view in accordance with law. The Registry was directed to send a copy of the order to the Special Judge (NDPS), Chandel.

Precedents referred to

State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh @ Billa, 2026 SCC Online SC 1058
Union of India v. Vigin K. Varghese, 2025 INSC 1316
Lunkhogin Kipgen v. Officer-in-Charge, NAB PS, Imphal, 2026:MNHC:195
Rajadurai v. State of Tamil Nadu, MANU/SCOR/29613/2026
Ngangom Somorendro Singh v. Officer-in-Charge, Moreh Police Station, Bail Application No. 17 of 2022
Harshala Desai v. Narcotics Control Bureau, Imphal, Bail Application No. 14 of 2025

Provisions referred to

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 21(c), 29, 35, 37 and 60(3)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 439
Constitution of India, Article 21

Read the full judgment (PDF) ↗

Official source: High Court of Manipur. The PDF above is a copy from an open dataset of the court's public records.

This summary is prepared for general assistance only. It may contain errors and is not legal advice — rely on the full judgment.

Criminal Bail Ndps Commercial Quantity Long Incarceration

Related judgments

Gujarat High Court Allowed ·7 Oct 2026 ·Criminal ★ Editor's pick

Gujarat HC quashes FIR against two lenders over a borrower's suicide: no proximate act or intent to abet, extortion not made out

The question: Whether the FIR and charge-sheet disclose abetment of suicide under Sections 306 and 107 IPC against lenders alleged to have harassed the deceased for recovery

The Gujarat High Court has quashed an FIR, the charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings against two lenders named in an FIR alleging that they abetted the suicide of a man who had borrowed on interest, and alleging extortion. Justice P. M. Raval held that, even if severe financial pressure and exorbitant interest were assumed, there was no proximate prior act showing a deliberate intent on the applicants' part to drive the deceased to suicide, as Sections 306 and 107 IPC require. On Section 386 IPC, the Court noted that the FIR did not allege the deceased was put in fear of death or grievous hurt when the signed blank cheques and stamp paper were handed over. It also found no documents to support the charges under the Gujarat Money-Lenders Act, 2011, and a suicide note that spoke only in general terms of financial stress. The FIR (C.R. No. I-37 of 2018, Malviyanagar Police Station, Rajkot, registered on 09.03.2018) was lodged by the wife of the deceased. It names five accused persons, including the two applicants, and alleges that her husband borrowed money on interest from them, was pressed with threats and heavy recovery demands, and consumed poisonous medicine on 08.03.2018 and died during treatment at about 09:00 p.m. It invokes Sections 306, 386 and 114 IPC and Sections 5, 40 and 42 of the Gujarat Money-Lenders Act, 2011. The applicants are Khodabhai Dhanabhai Jograna (Criminal Misc. Application No. 6657 of 2018), who is alleged to have lent Rs. 4,00,000 in 2012-2013, and Kalubhai Shiyaliya (Criminal Misc. Application No. 6389 of 2018), alleged to have lent Rs. 1,50,000 against two blank signed cheques and a blank stamp paper. The FIR states that he unilaterally filled in Rs.3,00,000 in each cheque, got them dishonoured and served a statutory legal notice. Both applications were heard together and allowed.

CR.MA/6657/2018

Delhi High Court Allowed ·7 Oct 2026 ·Criminal ★ Editor's pick

Delhi HC grants NDPS bail: alleged 259 gm recovery just above 250 gm commercial quantity, 15 months in custody, no evidence yet recorded

The question: Whether the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act bar bail where the alleged recovery is only marginally above the commercial quantity

The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to a man accused under Sections 8 and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in a case where the alleged recovery of morphine was 259 grams against the commercial quantity of 250 grams. Justice Amit Bansal noted that the recovery was marginally above the commercial quantity, that the applicant had been in custody for one year and three months, that charges were framed but no evidence had been recorded, and that he had no other NDPS case. The Court held that a prima facie case for bail was made out on the grounds of absence of independent witnesses and prolonged delay in the trial. The application was filed under Section 483 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with FIR No. 172/2025 of Police Station Crime Branch (South-East). The applicant has been in custody since his arrest on 6 July 2025. The order's account of the prosecution case gives the date of apprehension as 6 July 2026, which does not fit this date or the one year and three months of custody it records. According to the prosecution, the applicant was apprehended during regular patrolling and 259.3 grams of morphine was found in his possession. On his disclosure, 114 grams of morphine was allegedly recovered from one Lalit, who was also arrested. The samples sent to the forensic science laboratory were reported positive for morphine and several other substances. The status report states that the investigation is complete, the chargesheet is filed and charges have been framed. The State opposed bail on the ground that a commercial quantity attracts Section 37, that the recovery from the co-accused was of an intermediate quantity so parity could not be claimed, and that the applicant had an earlier FIR of 2015. The applicant answered that the earlier FIR concerned a different offence and that he had been granted bail in it. The order records these contentions without ruling on parity or the earlier FIR separately.

BAIL APPLN./2008/2026

Gujarat High Court Dismissed ·7 Oct 2026 ·Criminal ★ Editor's pick

Gujarat HC upholds acquittal in alleged rape and murder case as chain of circumstances was not complete

The question: Whether the High Court should interfere with an acquittal based on a view of the evidence that was reasonably possible

The Gujarat High Court has dismissed, at the admission stage, the State's appeal against the acquittal of an accused who was tried for the alleged rape and murder of his fiancée, whom the prosecution described as a minor. A Bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R. T. Vachhani held that the prosecution, which relied wholly on circumstantial evidence, had not proved its circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence, and that the Trial Court's acquittal was a plausible view with no perversity in it. The appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 1150 of 2026) was filed under Section 419 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. It challenged the judgment of the trial court in Special (POCSO) Case No. 31 of 2022, dated 29.11.2025, which acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 302 and 376(2)(n)(3) of the IPC and Sections 4, 5(L) and 6 of the POCSO Act. According to the prosecution, the body of the girl was found in a farm on 09.07.2022. It alleged that the accused called her to the spot, raped her, and then, harbouring suspicion, strangled her with his hand and later with a scarf. The prosecution examined 28 witnesses and exhibited 54 documents. The Trial Court found that the prosecution had not even proved that the deceased was a minor, and that motive, conduct, the discovery of the place under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the forensic evidence were not established as a complete chain.

CR.A/1150/2026