Bail under the NDPS Act granted subject to verification of no prior NDPS criminal antecedents.

The petitioners—Simanchal Parida, Simanchal Pradhan and Subhankar Digal—were accused in Inspector of Excise, E.I. & E.B. Unit-II (SD), Berhampur, Ganjam PR No. 27 of 2026-27, corresponding to Special Case No. 52 of 2026 (NDPS), pending before the Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Ganjam.

The prosecution alleged that they jointly transported 21 kg of contraband ganja in an auto-rickshaw bearing registration No. OD-24A-3312, constituting an offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.

The petitioners had been in custody since 15 April 2026; the prosecution report had been submitted, but the trial had not commenced and was expected to take time.

During the hearing, their counsel asserted that the petitioners had no criminal antecedents relating to offences under the NDPS Act and agreed that bail would be withheld if such antecedents were found.

1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, notwithstanding the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, in view of their period of custody, submission of the prosecution report and the likely delay in commencement of trial.

2. Whether bail could be granted subject to verification that the petitioners had no criminal antecedents for offences under the NDPS Act.

The Court exercised its bail jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The alleged offence was punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, concerning possession or transportation of a commercial quantity of cannabis.

Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for bail in commercial-quantity offences; the Court held that, on the petitioners’ asserted absence of NDPS-related criminal antecedents, they would be considered to have satisfied the requirements of that provision.

Bail may nevertheless be made conditional upon verification of the relevant criminal antecedents and compliance with terms fixed by the court concerned.

The Court considered that the petitioners had remained in custody since 15 April 2026, the prosecution report had already been filed, and the trial had not yet commenced and would take further time.

Although the allegation involved 21 kg of ganja and therefore attracted the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioners specifically claimed that they had no antecedents involving NDPS offences, and their counsel agreed that the benefit of bail would not be claimed if such antecedents were discovered.

On that basis, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court treated the statutory bail conditions as satisfied subject to antecedent verification.

The benefit of the order was expressly made conditional on verification that the concerned petitioner had no criminal antecedent relating to an offence under the NDPS Act; if such antecedent was found, the bail order would not operate in his favour.

The BLAPLs were accordingly disposed of.