Cross-Border Drug Smuggling on the Rise | P&H High Court Denies Bail Under NDPS Act | Calls for MEA Coordination in Cases Involving Foreign Nationals
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara dismissed a petition seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Court recorded that the petitioner had failed to meet the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in relation to an alleged involvement in trafficking of commercial quantity heroin. The Court directed senior police authorities to communicate the details of foreign connections in the case to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of India, for further necessary action. The petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
The matter arose from a First Information Report registered on June 18, 2024, at Police Station Division No. 8, Jalandhar, under Sections 21(c), 27A, 25, 29, 61, and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution alleged that during a chance recovery, the police seized one kilogram of heroin from the possession of an accused named Satish Suman. The investigation claimed compliance with all statutory requirements of the NDPS Act and the CrPC.
During the course of investigation, it was alleged that accused Satish Suman disclosed that he procured heroin from Amritsar and Tarn Taran under instructions of one Lucky, a resident of Ganna village, District Jalandhar, who was currently residing in the United States of America. He further disclosed that after delivering heroin to customers, he handed over drug proceeds to Lucky’s wife, Neha, and had also sold heroin to the petitioner, Seema.
The petitioner approached the Court under Section 483 of BNSS for regular bail. It was the second petition filed before the Court. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that pre-trial incarceration would cause irreversible injustice to the petitioner and her family and requested bail subject to any stringent conditions. The State opposed the grant of bail, relying on the reply filed.
The custody certificate and status report revealed multiple criminal antecedents of the petitioner. These included several cases registered since 2002 under the NDPS Act across different police stations in Nawanshahr, Rahon, and Balachaur. One of these cases resulted in conviction with a sentence of ten years. Additionally, an FIR under Sections 186, 353, 333, 332, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code had also been registered against the petitioner in 2015.
The prosecution submitted that digital evidence established links between the petitioner and co-accused. The petitioner’s disclosure statement dated November 4, 2024, mentioned her communications with Lucky through his U.S.-based phone numbers, and with Satish Suman through WhatsApp on her own mobile number. It was further recorded that after procuring drugs from Satish, she sold them to her relative, Bhaga, who supplied heroin further. Following Satish’s arrest, the petitioner allegedly disposed of the phone and SIM card used for communication.
The seized heroin weighed one kilogram, which was categorised as a commercial quantity. The statutory framework under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act prescribes punishment for contravention involving commercial quantity. Notifications issued under the NDPS Act specify heroin as a narcotic substance, with small quantity defined as less than five grams and commercial quantity as more than 250 grams. Consequently, the one kilogram recovered fell within the commercial category, attracting the stringent provisions of Section 37.
The petitioner advanced the argument of being a woman, seeking consideration on that ground. However, no legal precedent, study, or reasoning was cited to justify bail solely on the basis of gender. The State contended that given the nature of the offence, the quantity involved, and the criminal antecedents, the petitioner was not entitled to bail.
The Court examined the materials placed on record, including the disclosure statements, digital evidence, and antecedents, and considered the legislative framework governing bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics.
Justice Anoop Chitkara recorded that "dealing in Heroin in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications" and referred to the statutory categorisation of heroin and the prescribed punishments. The Court stated that the petitioner’s first argument of being a woman was not sufficient, noting that "although the legislature has provided a separate category for women, that category would not be automatically applicable, given the serious nature of the offence, coupled with a criminal history."
The Court observed that "although the recovery is not from the petitioner, there is sufficient prima facie digital evidence connecting the petitioner with the main accused from whom 1 kg of heroin was recovered." It further recorded that "the quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case."
Section 37 of the NDPS Act was reproduced, and the Court noted that "the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case, and the burden is on the petitioner to satisfy the twin conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37." The Court stated that the provisions of Section 37 were couched in negative language, meaning that bail could not be granted unless reasonable grounds existed to believe that the accused was not guilty and not likely to commit further offences.
The Court recorded that "the submissions made in the Court and the grounds in the bail petition do not shift the burden that the legislature places on the accused under S. 37 of the NDPS Act." It added that "the petitioner has not stated anything in the bail petition to discharge the burden put by the stringent conditions placed in the statute by the legislature under section 37 of the NDPS Act."
On criminal antecedents, the Court observed that "given the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, the probability of the petitioner repeating the offence, if released on bail, is significantly higher." It cited precedents including Union of India (NCB) v. Khalil Uddin and Narayan Takri v. State of Odisha, noting that the Supreme Court had disallowed bail where large quantities of contraband were recovered and the statutory mandate of Section 37 was not satisfied.
The Court recorded that "satisfying the fetters of S. 37 of the NDPS Act is like candling the infertile eggs." It elaborated that both twin conditions needed to be satisfied before granting bail, and that "the expression 'reasonable grounds' means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing the accused is not guilty of the alleged offense."
On prolonged custody, the Court stated that "the petitioner’s custody of around 09 months cannot be termed prolonged, given the minimum sentence prescribed for the offense." It added that any consideration for bail on account of delay could arise only if the trial did not conclude within three years of custody, and if the delay was not attributable to the petitioner.
The Court also considered the larger context of narcotics trafficking, recording that "these days, the trend of heroin being smuggled by the Indian Drugs Mafia from Pakistan’s border is also more noticeable." It stated that whenever foreign nationals or operations from outside India were involved in drug trafficking cases of significant quantity, senior officers should communicate the gist of the investigation to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Justice Anoop Chitkara directed that "in the present FIR, the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police/ Commissioner of Police are directed to send details of the information along with the phone numbers of Lucky to the concerned Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of India, to enable them to consider about communicating such inputs to their counterparts and intimate the United States of America about Lucky’s involvement in heroin trafficking."
The Court further ordered that "a copy of this order be sent to the Director General of Police for the State of Haryana, Punjab, and U.T. Chandigarh, to consider internal communications to their officers."
The bail petition was dismissed. The order stated, "Petition dismissed. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Suram Singh Rana, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab
Case Title: Seema v. State of Punjab
Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:115235
Case Number: CRM-M-28659-2025
Bench: Justice Anoop Chitkara
