Hostility of prosecution witnesses is not a valid ground for granting bail in NDPS cases.

The applicant filed a third bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 41/2024

The applicant was arrested on 26.10.2024 for allegedly transporting 28.500 kg of cannabis (ganja), valued at approximately Rs. 2,85,000/-, in a Swift car

Two previous bail applications (MCRC Nos. 3253/2025 and 8387/2024) were rejected by the High Court on merits on 28.04.2025 and 22.01.2025, respectively

The applicant sought bail on the new grounds that he had been in jail since October 2024 and that six out of seventeen prosecution witnesses had already been examined and turned hostile

Whether the fact that several prosecution witnesses turned hostile during the trial constitutes a sufficient ground for granting bail in a case involving a commercial quantity of narcotics after previous applications were rejected on merits.

The court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, regarding the power of the High Court to grant bail

Substantively, the case was governed by Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which provides for stringent punishment regarding commercial quantities of contraband

The court also adhered to the principle that subsequent bail applications require a substantial change in circumstances and that the hostility of certain witnesses during a pending trial does not necessarily entitle an accused to bail in NDPS matters where the merits were previously considered

The Court noted that the applicant’s previous bail pleas had been dismissed on merits twice within the preceding year

In reviewing the "new ground" presented—the hostility of six prosecution witnesses—the Court held that such a development during the trial process is insufficient to warrant the release of the applicant

The Court emphasized that despite the applicant's period of incarceration since October 2024 and the status of the witness testimonies, the gravity of the offence (involving a commercial quantity of 28.500 kg of cannabis) remained a primary consideration that outweighed the trial developments cited by the counsel

Consequently, the Court found no merit in the third application

However, the Court granted the trial court liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously and directed the office to communicate the order to the concerned trial court for compliance