An accused’s speedy-trial right cannot be withheld indefinitely awaiting execution of NBWAs against co-accused.

The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with SI of Excise, District Mobile Unit, Khordha PR No. 408 of 2025–26, corresponding to TR Case No. 9 of 2026, pending before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge under the NDPS Act, Khordha.

He was charged under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act for allegedly possessing 115 grams of brown sugar.

The petitioner had been in custody since 14 January 2026.

Although the charge-sheet had been filed and cognizance taken, the trial had not progressed because the case was repeatedly adjourned—nine times up to 7 July 2026—to await execution of a non-bailable warrant against a co-accused.

During the bail hearing, counsel for the petitioner stated that bail would be withheld if the petitioner was found to have any criminal antecedent involving an NDPS offence.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, despite being accused of possessing 115 grams of brown sugar in an offence under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act.

Whether the petitioner’s continued detention was justified when the trial had been delayed due to repeated adjournments awaiting execution of a non-bailable warrant against a co-accused.

Whether bail should be made conditional upon verification that the petitioner had no criminal antecedent involving an offence under the NDPS Act.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail, and Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, under which the alleged offence was charged.

The Court also applied the principle that an accused has a right to a speedy trial and that detention cannot be continued indefinitely because proceedings against a co-accused have been delayed.

In assessing bail, the Court considered the petitioner’s period of custody, the stage and progress of the trial, the absence of material suggesting that he would abscond or threaten witnesses, and the existence or otherwise of criminal antecedents of a similar nature.

The Court noted that the petitioner had remained in custody since 14 January 2026 and that, despite filing of the charge-sheet and taking of cognizance, the trial had made no meaningful progress because nine adjournments had been granted for execution of a non-bailable warrant against a co-accused.

It held that the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial could not be indefinitely subordinated to the procedural difficulty of securing the presence of the co-accused.

The Court further considered the petitioner’s claim of having no NDPS-related criminal antecedent, the absence of material indicating a likelihood of absconding or threatening witnesses, and the fact that the order would not express any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

Bail was therefore found appropriate, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act.

The petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹1,00,000 with two solvent sureties for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court seized of the case, subject to such further terms and conditions as that court might impose, excluding cash surety.

The benefit of the order was expressly made conditional upon verification that the petitioner had no criminal antecedent involving an NDPS offence; if such antecedent was found, the benefit of the order would not extend to him.

The BLAPL was accordingly disposed of, and a soft copy of the order was directed to be communicated to the concerned court and jail authorities.