Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable
Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 deals with offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. bailable. -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),-- (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; The Act came into force on 14 Nov 1985.
1[37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),--
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for 1[offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless--
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.].
Section 37, The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act 61 of 1985).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
State of Kerala v. Rajesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
REPORTABLE Rastogi/Malhotra 24 Jan 2020, Crl A 154-157/2020. Use Judgement of Main Case order-8.pdf, not same-date order-9 ROP. MCP flagged WRONG DOCUMENT (cache reuse) but the body is this reportable NDPS s.37 judgment. Twin conditions in s.37(1)(b) for bail in commercial-quantity NDPS are mandatory: the court must be satisfied there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail; the reverse burden is not a formality. High Court bail set aside. Map CrPC 439 (HC/Sessions bail) and successor BNSS 483 (mapping.csv near-identical). Do not map CrPC 482 (not the ratio).
On this section: s.37(1)(b) twin conditions (reasonable grounds the accused is not guilty; not likely to reoffend) are mandatory for commercial-quantity NDPS bail.
-
Sushanta Kumar Banik vs The State of Tripura
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An unreasonable and unexplained delay between the date of proposal for preventive detention and the date of passing the detention order snaps the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention, thereby vitiating the detention order. Additionally, the withholding or non-disclosure of material and vital facts by the sponsoring authority to the detaining authority, which would influence the detaining authority's decision on whether to make the detention order, vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and renders the detention order illegal. In the context of NDPS offences, the fact that an accused has been released on bail by a court despite the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is a material fact that must be disclosed to the detaining authority, as it indicates the court's assessment that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty or is not likely to commit offences while on bail.
On this section: Provides that offences under the NDPS Act are cognizable and non-bailable, with strict conditions for bail release. The Court noted that the appellant's release on bail despite these stringent provisions was a material fact indicating the court's assessment of the case, which should have been disclosed to the detaining authority.
-
Dadu @ Tulsidas vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 32A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is unconstitutional insofar as it takes away the power of the appellate court to suspend sentences awarded to convicts under the Act, because such complete prohibition renders the substantive right of appeal illusory and violates Article 21 of the Constitution. However, Section 32A remains valid insofar as it restricts the Executive's power to suspend, remit or commute sentences under Sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as this restriction is for a reasonable purpose of combating drug trafficking and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. A sentence awarded under the Act can be suspended by the appellate court only and strictly subject to the conditions spelt out in Section 37 of the Act, which requires reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
On this section: Provides that offences under the Act are cognizable and non-bailable, with specific conditions for bail grant. The Court held that suspension of sentences must be strictly subject to the conditions prescribed in this section, requiring reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and not likely to commit offences while on bail.
-
Jadavbhai Rayabhai Meniya T. Koli vs The State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In NDPS Act cases, even where serious charges are involved and substantial quantities of narcotics are allegedly recovered, bail may be granted on the basis of substantial compliance with Section 37 when the accused has no criminal antecedents and has already undergone substantial custody period during investigation and trial stages, subject to conditions of furnishing bail bonds and regular court appearance.
On this section: Court examines substantial compliance with Section 37 as significant factor favoring bail; this section imposes restrictions on bail but Court finds substantial compliance satisfied
-
Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception in criminal procedure. The presumption of innocence, being a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution, places the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt. Courts must exercise their discretion in granting or refusing bail judiciously, considering all relevant factors including the nature and gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the conduct of the accused during investigation, the delay in trial, and the likelihood of the accused absconding. Investigating agencies must comply with Section 41 and 41A of the CrPC by recording reasons for arrest and for not arresting. Non-compliance with these provisions entitles the accused to bail. Courts must act as guardians of liberty and ensure that personal liberty is protected in accordance with the procedure established by law.
On this section: Stringent bail provisions for NDPS offences; conditions for bail
-
Tofan Singh vs The State of Tamil Nadu through the Ineliigence Officer
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Officers designated under Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are 'police officers' within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Consequently, any confessional statement made to such officers is barred from being used as evidence under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Additionally, a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act, as Section 67 is limited to calling for information and examining persons during an inquiry antecedent to investigation, not for recording confessions as substantive evidence.
On this section: All offences under NDPS Act are cognizable and non-bailable
-
Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs Union of India Ministry of Finance through Secretary Revenue
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, insofar as it imposes two further conditions for release on bail (that Public Prosecutor be given opportunity to oppose and that Court be satisfied of reasonable grounds for believing accused not guilty and not likely to commit offence while on bail), is unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India because: (1) the classification based on sentencing of predicate offences has no rational nexus to the object of the PMLA Act which is to attach proceeds of crime and bring money laundering offenders to book; (2) the twin conditions relate to guilt of predicate offence, not money laundering offence, creating a disconnect; (3) the provision produces manifestly arbitrary results depending on whether predicate offence is in Part A or Part B of Schedule or whether person is charged with money laundering alone; (4) the provision inverts the presumption of innocence which is fundamental to criminal law; (5) the procedure is not fair, just and reasonable as required by Article 21; and (6) the provision lacks a compelling state interest justifying such drastic inroads into personal liberty.
On this section: Contains similar twin conditions for bail; Court noted these apply only to commercial quantity offences, showing rational classification
-
Gurdev Singh vs The State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, courts have discretion to impose sentences higher than the minimum prescribed punishment based on factors they deem fit, including the quantity of narcotic substance recovered. The quantity of drug is a relevant factor that falls within the court's discretion under Section 32B of the Act. While mitigating circumstances such as poverty, first-time offender status, and carrier role may be considered, they cannot override the seriousness of possessing commercial quantities of narcotics. Public interest and the societal impact of drug trafficking must be balanced against individual liberty when determining appropriate punishment. A sentence of 15 years for possession of 1 kg heroin (four times the commercial quantity) with intent to sell is justified and does not require interference.
On this section: Referenced regarding bail conditions during trial. Court noted that Section 37 was amended to provide mandatory conditions for bail in NDPS cases, reflecting legislative intent to deter drug trafficking.
-
R. S. Mishra vs State of Orissa
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a judicial officer at the charge framing stage under Section 228 Cr.P.C. drops or dilutes a serious charge against an accused, although the explicit statutory requirement to record reasons applies only to discharge orders under Section 227, minimum reasons in nutshell must be recorded to show consideration of material on record, especially when the material contains credible eyewitness testimony and corroborating medical evidence constituting prima facie case. Failure to do so shows non-application of mind and opens the judicial order to revision. However, corrective observations by High Court to the Administration suggesting performance verification before promotion, while addressing a serious judicial deficiency, do not constitute derogatory remarks that harm judicial independence if they are not cast in disparaging language and are necessary for maintaining public confidence in the judiciary. Administrative consequences such as denial of promotion flowing from verified performance deficiency are distinguishable from punitive contempt proceedings and do not violate judicial independence.
On this section: Mentioned as context for appellant's earlier suspension; indicates prohibition against bail in certain cases, which appellant had violated
-
Maktool Singh vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 32A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which prohibits suspension, remission or commutation of sentences under the Act (except Section 27), has an overriding effect and applies to all courts, including the High Court, and therefore the High Court cannot suspend sentences passed on persons convicted of NDPS offences (except Section 27) at any stage, including during the pendency of appeal. The non obstante clause in Section 32A makes it clear that this prohibition operates despite any provision in the Criminal Procedure Code or any other law. Section 36B of the NDPS Act, which preserves High Court powers under Chapter XXIX of the CrPC, is subject to the phrase 'so far as may be applicable', which limits the applicability of CrPC provisions to the extent they are not interdicted by Section 32A.
On this section: The Court analyzed Section 37, which makes NDPS offences cognizable and non-bailable, to support the interpretation that Parliament intended strict restrictions on release of accused persons at all stages, including post-conviction, thereby supporting the prohibition on sentence suspension.
-
Sanjay Kumar Kedia vs Narcotics Control Bureau
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A person or company cannot claim immunity under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (which protects intermediaries from liability for third-party information) when engaged in illegal drug trafficking operations. Section 79 provides immunity only from prosecution under the Information Technology Act itself, not from prosecution under other statutes such as the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. When a company uses technology platforms and internet services as a facade to actively facilitate, design, develop, host, and control the distribution of banned psychotropic substances, it is not a mere intermediary but an active participant in the illegal trade and can be prosecuted under Sections 24 and 29 of the NDPS Act. Bail should be denied when overwhelming inculpatory evidence establishes a prima facie case and there are no reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty or would not resume illegal activities.
On this section: Establishes conditions for grant of bail - requires reasonable grounds to believe appellant is not guilty or would not resume activities; Court found no such grounds existed
-
Anilbhai Nayaka vs The Union Of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Non-applicability of the strict rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act to controlled substances does not automatically entitle an accused to bail. The court can refuse bail if there is seizure of huge quantity of controlled substance with potential for manufacturing narcotic substances, existence of incriminating material, and likelihood of non-availability during trial, particularly in cases involving trans-border drug trafficking operations.
On this section: Twin test for bail eligibility requiring reasonable grounds to believe accused is not guilty and will not commit similar offence if released. Court applied this to controlled substances when criminal conspiracy and abetment are involved.
-
Anilbhai Nayaka vs Union Of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Even though Section 37 of the NDPS Act (twin test for bail) may not strictly apply to controlled substances as opposed to narcotic drugs, the non-applicability of this section does not automatically entitle an accused to bail. Courts retain discretion to refuse bail in controlled substance cases based on: (1) seizure of huge quantity of controlled substance with potential for manufacturing narcotic drugs, (2) presence of incriminating material establishing active participation in drug trafficking, (3) likelihood of accused absconding or becoming unavailable for trial, particularly when accused are non-residents of the trial jurisdiction, and (4) transnational/international aspects of the drug trafficking operation. The burden remains on the accused to satisfy the court that bail should be granted, and in cases involving serious drug trafficking with international linkage, courts should exercise caution in granting bail.
On this section: Twin test for bail in NDPS cases: (1) reasonable grounds for believing accused is not guilty, and (2) accused would not commit similar offence if granted bail. Court held that while Section 37 may not strictly apply to controlled substances, the principles underlying it remain relevant for bail assessment in serious drug trafficking cases.
-
Amarjeet Ram Alias Baba vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted when an accused is booked under Section 27(A) for financing illicit traffic, independent of whether the quantity of contraband seized is commercial or non-commercial.
On this section: Strict conditions for bail where the court must be satisfied of the accused's innocence.
-
Ankit @ Aniket vs State of Odisha
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted when the seized contraband falls within the 'intermediate quantity' category, favoring the grant of bail where the charge-sheet is filed.
On this section: Court held this section does not apply as the quantity is intermediate, not commercial.
-
Chiluka Saidi Reddy vs The State of Telanagana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a bail application is filed after the charge sheet has been filed, even if the charge sheet was filed after expiry of the statutory period under Section 167 CrPC, the accused is not entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC. The indefeasible right to statutory bail accrues only from the time of default (expiry of statutory period) till the filing of charge sheet and does not survive or remain enforceable once the charge sheet is filed. The test is whether as on the date of expiry of statutory period, a charge sheet has been filed before the concerned court, irrespective of whether cognizance has been taken. If the bail application is filed after the charge sheet is filed, the accused must meet the requirements under Section 37 of NDPS Act (or other applicable bail provisions) to obtain bail.
On this section: Bail provision applicable to NDPS Act offences when statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is not available. Court noted that stricter requirements under this section apply once charge sheet is filed.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 37
What have the courts held on Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act?
State of Kerala v. Rajesh (24 Jan 2020) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.37(1)(b) twin conditions (reasonable grounds the accused is not guilty; not likely to reoffend) are mandatory for commercial-quantity NDPS bail. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 11 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2000 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: NDPS Act 37, section 37 NDPS Act, section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. People searching for it also type 37a ndps act and 37 ndps act tamil. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with State of Kerala v. Rajesh (24 Jan 2020).
What should I read with Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 19 (Punishment for embezzlement of opium by cultivator), section 24 (Punishment for external dealings in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in contravention of section 12), section 27A (Punishment for financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders), so none of them can safely be read on its own.
When did Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act come into force?
Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, commonly called ndps bail or narcotics commercial quantity, and cited as NDPS Act 37, came into force on 14 Nov 1985, having been enacted on 16 Sep 1985. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions1747 words
- 68B. Definitions819 words
- 9. Power of Central Government to permit, control and regulate816 words
- 36A. Offences triable by Special Courts631 words
- 10. Power of State Government to permit, control and regulate568 words
- 42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation507 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.