Acquittal in previous NDPS and Excise cases warrants grant of bail despite prior criminal history.

The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

A previous bail application (MCRC No. 7850/2025) was rejected on 06.10.2025 primarily due to a prior NDPS criminal record.

The prosecution alleged that on 24.09.2024, police seized 854 units of Rexogesic ampoules (containing Buprenorphine) from co-accused persons.

The applicant was arrested on 07.03.2025 and charged under Sections 21, 22, and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The applicant sought bail on the grounds of acquittal in previous cases, prolonged incarceration since March 2025, and the slow progress of the trial, where only two of thirty witnesses had been examined.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail during the pendency of the trial despite the rejection of a previous bail application on merits

2. Whether the applicant’s criminal antecedents and the nature of the recovery justify continued judicial custody under the NDPS Act

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant bail.

Sections 21, 22, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

Section 269 of the BNS (non-attendance in obedience to order).

Section 84 of the BNSS (proclamation for person absconding) and Section 209 of the BNS (failure to appear in court).

The Court noted that the primary reason for the previous rejection—a prior NDPS case—was no longer a valid barrier as the applicant had since been acquitted of those charges.

The Court evaluated the "change in circumstances," noting the applicant had been in jail since March 2025 and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon given that 28 witnesses remained unexamined.

Although the State opposed the bail based on the filed charge-sheet, they conceded that the applicant had been acquitted of his previous NDPS and Excise Act charges.

Consequently, the Court found that continued detention was not warranted and that the applicant had sufficiently explained his legal history in the current application.

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to strict conditions: he must not seek adjournments when witnesses are present, must appear on all trial dates, and must be present for specific stages including framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.