After Over A Year In Custody, P&H HC Grants NDPS Accused Regular Bail Despite Section 37, Citing Slow Trial

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 4.147 grams of Etizolam

He had been arrested on 12 July 2025; the challan was presented on 29 November 2025.

Of ten cited prosecution witnesses, two had been partly examined and five had been given up.

The petitioner’s earlier bail petition had been dismissed as withdrawn.

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

The Court recorded that the petitioner had undergone 1 year and 20 days of custody and was not involved in another case.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for the regular-bail application.

Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes restrictions on bail, including the requirement to hear the Public Prosecutor and satisfy the statutory conditions.

The Court relied on Article 21’s protection of life and personal liberty, including the right to a speedy trial, and on authorities concerning prolonged pre-trial detention, including Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, K.A. Najeeb, Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) and other cases cited in the judgment.

It also relied on Kulwinder v. State of Punjab for the proposition that prolonged incarceration and unjustified trial delay may warrant bail despite Section 37.

It also relied on Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana for the rule that a successive bail petition is maintainable but ordinarily requires a substantial change in circumstances and clear reasons for granting bail.

The Court considered the petitioner’s custody, the limited progress of the trial, and the absence of material indicating that he was likely to abscond or interfere with the prosecution evidence.

It treated the trial’s pace and the petitioner’s continued incarceration as circumstances supporting relief, and concluded that further detention was not warranted.

Applying its cited Article 21 authorities, the Court held that the Section 37 restrictions did not preclude bail in the circumstances of this case.

It also addressed the successive nature of the application, relying on the principle that such a petition is maintainable and may succeed where the circumstances justify it.

Bail was subject to conditions including non-interference with evidence, attendance at trial, surrender of any passport, notification of his cellphone number, and monthly affidavits stating that he had not committed another offence; the State was granted liberty to seek cancellation of bail in the event of breach.

The Court clarified that its observations would not affect the merits of the case.