Bail granted in NDPS prosecution after prolonged custody and charge-framing, absent similar criminal antecedents.

The petitioners, Umesh Kumar Swain @ Santa and Kulamani Khatei @ Jatia, sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Pipili P.S. Case No. 674 of 2025, corresponding to Special G.R. Case No. 181 of 2025, pending before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Puri.

They were accused of offences under Sections 21(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, based on the allegation that they jointly possessed 150.2 grams of brown sugar.

The petitioners had remained in custody since 1 November 2025 and 2 November 2025, respectively, and charges had been framed during their custody.

Their counsel undertook that bail would be withheld if either petitioner was found to have a similar criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act.

1. Whether the petitioners should be released on bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with the alleged offences under Sections 21(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act?

2. Whether the absence of reported NDPS antecedents, prolonged pre-trial custody, and framing of charge justified grant of bail subject to verification and conditions?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant bail in appropriate cases.

It considered the alleged offences under Sections 21(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act concerning possession and abetment or criminal conspiracy relating to narcotic substances.

The Court also applied the recognised principle that “bail is the rule, but jail is the exception,” while assessing the nature and gravity of the accusation, the period of pre-trial detention, the stage of the proceedings, and the petitioners’ criminal antecedents.

The Court considered the allegation of joint possession of 150.2 grams of brown sugar, the nature and gravity of the offences, and the fact that the petitioners had been in custody since November 2025.

It further noted that charges had already been framed, thereby reducing the justification for continued pre-trial detention on the facts before it.

Since no criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act had been reported, and the petitioners’ counsel expressly agreed that the benefit of bail would not extend to a petitioner found to have a similar antecedent, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The order was expressly made subject to verification of the petitioners’ criminal antecedents, and its benefit would not be extended to either petitioner if a similar NDPS antecedent were found.

Both BLAPLs were accordingly disposed of.