After 15 Months In Custody With No Witnesses Examined, P&H HC Grants Bail In 1.279-Kg Heroin Case Despite NDPS Section 37

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an FIR alleging offences under Sections 21-C, 25, 29, 61 and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”), concerning recovery of 1 kg 279 grams of heroin.

Arrested on July 8, 2025, the petitioner had been in custody for 1 year, 3 months and 21 days by November 2, 2026. The challan had been presented on January 5, 2026; 19 prosecution witnesses were cited, but none had been examined.

This was his second regular-bail petition; his previous petition had been dismissed as withdrawn on July 20, 2026. Two co-accused had been granted bail.

Section 483 of the BNSS (formerly Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantities, including hearing the Public Prosecutor and satisfying the statutory twin conditions.

However, the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution protects against unjustified prolonged pre-trial detention; in an appropriate case, undue delay and incarceration may justify bail notwithstanding Section 37’s restrictions.

A successive regular-bail petition is maintainable, but ordinarily requires a substantial change in circumstances; a court granting bail must give cogent reasons.

The Court also relied on authorities holding that involvement in other FIRs, by itself, is insufficient to deny bail in the case under consideration.

The Court noted that the petitioner had undergone more than 15 months’ custody, the trial had not progressed to the examination of any witness, and its conclusion was likely to take considerable time.

It considered that the delay was not attributable to the petitioner and found no material indicating that he was likely to abscond or interfere with prosecution evidence.

In balancing Section 37 against Article 21, the Court concluded that continued detention in these circumstances was unwarranted.

Although the petition was successive, the extended incarceration and slow progress of the trial supplied the circumstances justifying its consideration and grant.

The petitioner’s reported involvement in other FIRs did not, by itself, defeat the bail claim in this case.

It imposed conditions including no misuse of liberty, no evidence tampering, attendance at trial, no further offences, passport deposit if any, providing and maintaining a cellphone number, not delaying the trial, and filing a monthly affidavit confirming no subsequent involvement in an offence.

The State or complainant may seek cancellation of bail upon breach of the conditions or other sufficient cause.

The Court clarified that its observations did not express an opinion on the merits of the case.