In a significant judgment reinforcing constitutional safeguards and procedural fairness, the Delhi High Court granted bail to Naveen Handa, a licensed drug distributor and co-owner of Vin Healthcare, accused of violating provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The bail was granted despite serious allegations regarding discrepancies in the stock of regulated medicines such as Fentanyl, Morphine, and Ketamine.

Case Background

The case arose from a raid conducted by the Central Bureau of Narcotics (CBN) on 13 February 2024, during which a large quantity of NDPS-regulated drugs was recovered from the petitioner’s premises. Investigators alleged that the petitioner failed to account for this inventory and had supplied these medicines illegally using forged medical prescriptions and fake invoices. He was arrested the following day and remained in custody for over 17 months.

The trial court had earlier denied bail, citing the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for bail.

Petitioner’s Contention

The defence argued that:

• The petitioner held a valid license under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which was verified and undisputed.
• The alleged discrepancy in inventory was administrative in nature and did not prove criminal intent.
• The grounds of arrest were not formally communicated to the petitioner, violating his constitutional right under Article 22(1).
• Co-accused individuals, including Ms. Neha Bedi (co-licensee) and Mr. Venkatesh Reddy (alleged supplier and business partner), were not prosecuted, raising questions of selective targeting.
• The investigation was complete, charges had been framed, and the petitioner had no criminal history or risk of tampering with evidence.

Court’s Observations

Justice Arun Monga held that:

• Mere possession of NDPS substances under a valid license does not trigger automatic criminality under the NDPS Act.
• The lack of quantitative limits on the license weakened the prosecution’s assertion of overstocking.
• Prolonged custody without trial progress undermines personal liberty, especially when evidence is documentary and already secured.
• The procedural lapse of failing to formally communicate arrest grounds was a serious constitutional infraction.

Conclusion and Significance

The Court granted bail, citing that both conditions under Section 37 were not met. The ruling sends a strong message that due process, fairness, and proportionality remain essential even in NDPS matters. It cautions enforcement agencies against excessive reliance on technical violations and emphasizes the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

This judgment is a valuable precedent on bail jurisprudence under the NDPS Act, particularly for licensed professionals operating in a highly regulated pharmaceutical environment.