After State Wrongly Reported 7 Other Cases, P&H HC Grants Bail To NDPS Accused, Orders Statewide Instructions On Antecedent Checks Before Court Reports

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an NDPS case arising from FIR No. 44 dated 26 February 2025.

He had been in custody since his arrest that day.

His earlier bail petition was dismissed after the State reported that he had seven other NDPS cases, including three convictions.

On reconsideration, the State acknowledged that the petitioner had only one earlier conviction, for which he had served the sentence, and had been acquitted in another case; the other cases previously reported were not correctly attributed to him.

The State attributed the inaccurate report to officials’ failure to verify the record, and reported that departmental proceedings had been initiated against them.

In the present case, 30 tablets of Etizolam, weighing 2.7 grams, and 49 tablets of Tramadol were allegedly recovered from the petitioner.

The alleged Etizolam quantity exceeded the stated commercial-quantity threshold of 2.5 grams by 0.2 grams.

At the time of the decision, only two of 14 prosecution witnesses had been examined.

The petition was considered under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provides the High Court with power to grant regular bail.

The prosecution arose under Section 22(C) of the NDPS Act, with additional BNS provisions also recorded in the judgment.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the allegations, period of custody, progress and likely duration of trial, and the corrected information about the petitioner’s criminal antecedents.

The judgment cites no precedent and does not set out a separate analysis of any statutory bail restriction.

The Court considered the earlier adverse account of the petitioner’s criminal history materially undermined by the State’s admission that the information was incorrect and that only one previous conviction and one acquittal were established.

It also took into account that the alleged Etizolam weight exceeded the stated commercial-quantity threshold by only 0.2 grams, that the petitioner had been in custody since 26 February 2025, and that the trial had progressed through only two of 14 prosecution witnesses.

Given the likely delay in concluding the trial, the Court held that continued detention would serve no useful purpose and granted bail on the totality of those circumstances.

Separately, it directed that the departmental inquiry be concluded expeditiously and called for State-wide instructions requiring proper verification of accused persons’ antecedents before status reports or affidavits are filed.

It directed that he not threaten or influence prosecution witnesses, and stated that the bail order would be deemed cancelled if he were directly found engaging in similar activities in the future.

The trial Court was to decide the case independently and as expeditiously as possible.

The SSP was directed to ensure the departmental inquiry reached its conclusion preferably within six months, and appropriate verification instructions were to be circulated to police officers across the State.