After 20 Months In Custody And Only 3 Of 23 Witnesses Examined, P&H HC Grants Regular Bail In 205-Kg Poppy-Husk Case

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 205.325 kg of poppy husk.

The FIR was registered under Sections 15, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act, with Sections 15-C, 25, 27-A, 29 and 31 later added.

The petitioner had been in custody since 1 March 2025; the challan was presented on 7 August 2025, and three of 23 prosecution witnesses had been examined by the time of the decision.

His earlier bail petition had been dismissed as not pressed on 9 February 2026.

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

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers the Court to consider regular bail; Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantities, including the Court’s satisfaction on the statutory twin conditions.

The Court relied on Article 21’s protection of life and personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial, holding that prolonged, unjustified pre-trial detention may warrant conditional liberty notwithstanding Section 37.

It also applied the principles in Kulwinder v. State of Punjab concerning delay and fundamental rights, and Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana that a successive bail application is maintainable but requires a substantial change in circumstances and cogent reasons for granting bail.

The Court considered that the petitioner had been incarcerated for 1 year, 8 months and 9 days, while only three of the 23 cited prosecution witnesses had been examined.

It found that the disputed contentions could be decided at trial, and that nothing tangible indicated a risk of absconding or interference with prosecution evidence.

Applying the Article 21 and speedy-trial principles, the Court held that the Section 37 restrictions did not preclude bail in these circumstances.

It treated the extended incarceration and limited trial progress as sufficient changed circumstances to consider the successive application favourably.

The petitioner was also directed to comply with specified conditions, including not tampering with evidence, appearing at trial, refraining from further offences, depositing any passport, providing and maintaining his phone number, and not delaying the trial; breach may result in an application for cancellation of bail.

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