After 2 Years In Custody And Only 2 Of 27 Witnesses Examined, P&H HC Grants Bail In NDPS Case Despite Section 37

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an FIR alleging offences under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, with Section 29 added later.

The case concerned recovery of 1 kg 492 grams of tramadol. The petitioner had been in custody since 19 September 2024; the challan was filed on 12 March 2025, and only two of the 27 prosecution witnesses had been examined by the time of the petition.

His two earlier bail petitions had been dismissed as withdrawn.

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

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers the High Court to grant bail; Section 37 of the NDPS Act ordinarily requires the Court to hear the Public Prosecutor and be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

The Court relied on Article 21’s protection of life and personal liberty, including the right to a speedy trial, as recognised in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, and the other Supreme Court authorities cited through Kulwinder v. State of Punjab.

It applied the principle that prolonged incarceration caused by trial delay not attributable to the accused may justify bail notwithstanding Section 37’s restrictions.

It also relied on Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana for the rule that successive bail applications are maintainable, but ordinarily require a substantial change in circumstances and cogent reasons for granting relief.

The Court found that the petitioner had undergone more than two years of custody, while only two of 27 prosecution witnesses had been examined; the resulting delay was not attributable to him.

It considered that the disputed prosecution and defence contentions raised issues for trial and declined to assess them at the bail stage.

The State had not shown a tangible likelihood that the petitioner would abscond or interfere with prosecution evidence.

Given the prolonged detention and slow progress of the trial, the Court held that continued reliance on Section 37 could not override the petitioner’s Article 21 interests in the circumstances of this case.

Although this was the third petition, the extended incarceration and glacial pace of trial supplied the changed circumstances and reasons needed to consider and grant it.

Bail was subject to conditions, including non-interference with evidence, attendance at trial, no further offences, surrender of any passport, restrictions on changing his cellphone number, and monthly affidavits stating that he had not been involved in another offence since release.

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

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