After 1 Year, 4 Months In Custody, P&H HC Grants Bail In 257g Heroin Case With Only 2 Of 16 Prosecution Witnesses Examined

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an NDPS case arising from the alleged recovery of 257 grams of heroin.

He had been in custody since 1 July 2025; the challan was presented on 12 January 2026, and, of 16 prosecution witnesses, only two had been examined.

The petitioner argued that the alleged recovery was only marginally above the commercial-quantity threshold, that the trial was delayed, and that mandatory NDPS provisions had not been followed.

The State opposed bail, relying on the seriousness of the allegations and Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The custody certificate also recorded the petitioner’s involvement in other cases.

Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes restrictions on bail in cases involving commercial quantities, including the requirement that the Court be satisfied as to the statutory twin conditions.

However, the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to a speedy trial; prolonged, unjustified pre-trial detention may warrant bail notwithstanding statutory restrictions.

The Court relied on authorities including Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Sri Sujit Das and others v. Union of India, as discussed in the judgment.

The Court also relied on Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and other cited authorities for the principle that criminal antecedents are relevant but do not, without more, determine whether bail should be granted in the case under consideration.

The Court noted that the petitioner had undergone more than one year and four months of custody, while only two of the 16 cited prosecution witnesses had been examined.

It treated the alleged recovery as marginally above the commercial-quantity threshold and declined to determine the parties’ disputed contentions about the merits at the bail stage.

Finding no tangible indication that the petitioner would abscond or interfere with the evidence, the Court concluded that further detention was not warranted in the circumstances.

Applying the Article 21 speedy-trial principles and the authorities discussed, it held that the Section 37 restrictions did not preclude bail where continued detention would imperil the petitioner’s fundamental rights.

The petitioner’s reported involvement in other cases was considered but was not treated as sufficient, on its own, to refuse bail in this FIR.

The Court imposed additional conditions, including non-interference with evidence, regular attendance, surrender of any passport, notification of his cellphone number, and monthly affidavits concerning subsequent involvement in offences; the State may seek cancellation of bail in the event of breach or other sufficient cause.

The Court clarified that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.