Bail for commercial-quantity NDPS offences requires strict satisfaction of Section 37’s twin conditions.

On 12 January 2025, police intercepted truck No. NL-01-AJ-0403 near Jhulanta Bridge, Gangail Road. Mintu Barman was allegedly driving the vehicle, while another accused, Jamal Hossein, was seated beside him. A search revealed 12 cartons containing approximately 1,20,000 Yaba tablets weighing about 12 kg, concealed in a chamber above the driver’s and co-driver’s seats. The contraband was seized and both occupants were arrested under the NDPS Act

The accused was charged under Sections 22(c), 25, 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act, and the case was registered as Special (NDPS) Case No. 94 of 2025. His earlier bail applications were rejected, and charges were framed on 18 February 2026. At the time of the present application, he had been in custody for approximately 406 days, while the trial remained pending

The applicant also alleged that the grounds of arrest had not been supplied to him or his family members, violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution

1. Whether the accused was entitled to bail under Section 483(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023, notwithstanding the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, where the alleged recovery involved a commercial quantity of contraband

2. Whether the accused’s prolonged incarceration, delay in conclusion of the trial, and alleged non-supply of the grounds of arrest justified his release on bail

3. Whether the accused satisfied the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act—namely, reasonable grounds for believing that he was not guilty and that he was unlikely to commit an offence while on bail

The Court applied Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, which imposes an additional bar on bail where the alleged offence involves a commercial quantity or offences under Sections 19, 24 or 27-A: the Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose bail, and, if bail is opposed, the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail

These limitations operate in addition to the ordinary restrictions governing bail

The Court also considered the constitutional principles concerning personal liberty, speedy trial and the right against arbitrary arrest under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution, but held that prolonged custody or trial delay cannot, by itself, override the mandatory requirements of Section 37 in a commercial-quantity NDPS case

The alleged recovery of approximately 12 kg of Yaba tablets, described as a commercial quantity, attracted the stringent requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, and the Court found prima facie material connecting the accused with the contraband allegedly concealed in the vehicle he was driving

In the Court’s view, the circumstances indicated organised drug trafficking and did not provide reasonable grounds to conclude either that the accused was not guilty or that he would not commit an offence if released

Although the accused relied on his 406 days of custody and the delay in trial, the Court held that such delay did not independently justify bail because the twin conditions under Section 37 remained unsatisfied

The Court accordingly found no basis to dispense with or dilute the statutory embargo under Section 37

The application under Section 483(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023 was dismissed, and the order dated 13 August 2026 of the Special Judge, NDPS, Court No. 2, West Tripura, rejecting bail was affirmed

The trial court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, and the prosecution was directed to cooperate in ensuring a speedy trial