Extended prior compliance and three months’ custody justified bail despite missed trial appearances.

The petitioner sought regular bail in two NDPS cases arising from Crime Nos. 40 of 2023 and 91 of 2024, in which the alleged offence was under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

He had previously been granted bail and had appeared before the Trial Court for more than two years. After he failed to appear on hearing dates in January 2026, non-bailable warrants were issued; his presence was secured on 8 July 2026, and he was remanded to judicial custody.

His subsequent bail applications before the Trial Court were rejected. At the time of the High Court’s consideration, he had been in custody for more than three months; no other criminal cases had been registered against him after 2023. He undertook to cooperate with the trial and comply with any conditions imposed.

Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail in the two pending NDPS cases after being remanded to custody for failing to appear before the Trial Court.

Whether appropriate bail conditions could address the petitioner’s prior non-appearance and secure his future attendance at trial.

The Court considered its power to grant regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the pending charges under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

The order does not cite any precedent or set out a separate statutory test for bail; it assesses the circumstances before the Court and makes release conditional on safeguards designed to ensure the petitioner’s attendance and prevent interference with the prosecution.

The Court weighed the petitioner’s previous compliance—attendance before the Trial Court for more than two years—and the absence of any further criminal cases after 2023 against his failure to appear in January 2026.

It treated the resulting custody of more than three months as sufficient punishment for that default, while taking account of his undertaking to cooperate with the trial.

The Court concluded that release was appropriate, subject to conditions requiring regular court attendance, non-interference with witnesses, avoidance of similar offences, restrictions on leaving the Trial Court’s jurisdiction, and monthly attendance at the police station.

Bail was subject to execution of a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum, regular appearance before the Trial Court, non-interference with prosecution witnesses, no involvement in similar offences, no departure from the Trial Court’s jurisdiction without permission, and monthly attendance at Mandi Police Station for one year after release.