Hostile seizure witnesses alone do not constitute changed circumstances warranting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 114/2025 registered at Police Station Bodhghat, District Bastar, for an offence under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

The prosecution alleged that 21.350 kilograms of ganja, substantially above the commercial quantity, was recovered from a sack in the applicant’s possession.

The applicant’s first regular bail application was rejected on merits by a coordinate Bench on 24 April 2026, primarily considering the quantity of contraband and the material against him.

In the present second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant relied on an alleged change in circumstances: two independent seizure witnesses, PW-1 Vicky Kashyap and PW-2 Arun Srivastava, had been examined, declared hostile, and stated that they had signed documents at the police station without witnessing the seizure-related proceedings at the spot.

The applicant also relied on prolonged custody since 10 March 2025 and the anticipated delay in trial, as only two of thirteen prosecution witnesses had been examined.

The State opposed bail, relying on the commercial quantity recovered, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the earlier rejection of bail on merits.

Whether the testimony of the two independent seizure witnesses, who were examined and declared hostile during trial, constituted a substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the applicant’s second bail application?

Whether the applicant satisfied the statutory conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for release on bail despite the alleged recovery of 21.350 kilograms of ganja, a quantity above the commercial threshold?

Whether prolonged incarceration and the likely delay in conclusion of the trial justified the grant of bail in the circumstances of the case?

The Court considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

The alleged offence was under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, concerning possession of cannabis/ganja.

Because the alleged recovery was of commercial quantity, Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied, requiring the Court to be satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accused was not guilty and was unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

The Court also applied the principle that, at the stage of bail, it should not conduct a detailed assessment of the reliability or credibility of prosecution witnesses; such evaluation is reserved for the trial.

A second bail application requires a substantial change in circumstances, particularly where the first application was rejected on merits.

The Court held that the alleged recovery of 21.350 kilograms of ganja, being substantially above the commercial quantity, attracted the stringent restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Although PW-1 and PW-2 had not supported the prosecution and had been declared hostile, their evidence could not be conclusively evaluated for credibility at the bail stage.

Their testimony therefore did not, by itself, establish a substantial change in circumstances sufficient to reopen the issue decided in the earlier bail order.

In view of the prior rejection of bail on merits, the serious nature of the offence, the quantity of contraband, and the absence of reasonable grounds at that stage to believe that the applicant was not guilty, the statutory threshold under Section 37 was not met.

The Court further held that prolonged custody and the projected delay in trial did not outweigh these considerations.

It held that the hostile testimony of the independent seizure witnesses did not constitute a sufficient change in circumstances, and that the applicant failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The second regular bail application filed by Dasi Badanayak was accordingly rejected.

The Registry was directed to provide a certified copy of the order to the concerned trial Court for information and compliance.