After 20 Months In Custody, P&H HC Grants Bail To Woman Accused In Tramadol Case, Citing Trial Delay Despite Section 37 NDPS Act Rigours

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 398.392 grams of Tramadol Hydrochloride.

She had been in custody since 26 February 2025; the challan was presented on 24 April 2025, and, of 12 cited prosecution witnesses, seven had been examined by the time of this fourth bail petition.

The petitioner relied on alleged non-compliance with mandatory NDPS provisions, delay in trial and prolonged incarceration. The State opposed bail, invoking the seriousness of the allegations and Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The petitioner was approximately 41 years old, and the custody certificate recorded incarceration of one year, eight months and 12 days, as well as involvement in other cases/FIRs.

Her previous bail petition had been dismissed as withdrawn.

Section 483 BNSS provides the High Court’s power to grant bail; the Court also considered the proviso to Section 480(1) BNSS, which permits special consideration of bail for a woman and was treated as pari materia with the proviso to Section 437 CrPC.

Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for bail in relevant NDPS cases, including consideration of whether 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 Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, which requires courts to consider the statutory proviso concerning women and to apply it purposively, according to the circumstances.

It also applied the principles on successive bail applications set out in Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana: a successive application is maintainable but ordinarily requires a substantial change in circumstances and cogent reasons for granting bail.

The Court further relied on the Article 21 right to a speedy trial, concluding that prolonged incarceration and unjustified trial delay may, on the facts, warrant conditional liberty notwithstanding Section 37.

The Court did not determine the petitioner’s challenges to compliance with the NDPS Act, observing that the competing contentions raised debatable issues better left for trial; it also found no tangible indication that she would abscond or interfere with evidence.

In favour of bail, it considered her period in custody, the trial’s progress, her status as a woman, and the constitutional concern arising from continued pre-trial detention.

Although this was a fourth application and the petitioner had reported antecedents, the Court held that those matters did not, without more, defeat bail in the present FIR; it considered the extended incarceration and lack of substantial trial progress sufficient in the circumstances.

It therefore concluded that further detention was unwarranted and that the Section 37 restrictions did not preclude bail on these facts.

The Court imposed additional conditions, including attendance at trial, non-interference with evidence, surrender of any passport, disclosure of and restrictions on changing her cellphone number, and monthly affidavits confirming that she had not been involved in another offence.

The State was granted liberty to seek cancellation of bail in the event of breach of the conditions or other sufficient cause; the order expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.