In NDPS commercial quantity cases, long incarceration alone is insufficient ground for granting regular bail.

The applicant was arrested on 11.03.2024 following a police search based on secret information, which resulted in the seizure of 23 kilograms of ganja (a commercial quantity) from the applicant's vehicle

A case was registered under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act.

The applicant’s first bail application was rejected on merits by the High Court on 20.05.2025, and a subsequent Special Leave to Appeal was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 08.09.2025

The applicant filed this second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), citing long incarceration and the fact that only 4 out of 16 witnesses had been examined

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail in a commercial-quantity NDPS case based on the grounds of prolonged judicial custody and slow trial progress

The Court primarily applied Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which prescribes stringent penalties for possession of commercial quantities of contraband

It relied on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Vigin K. Varghese (2025), which established that in NDPS cases involving commercial quantities, long incarceration cannot, by itself, be a valid ground for granting bail

The Court also exercised its discretionary powers under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

The Court observed that the first bail application had already been dismissed on merits because the contraband seized exceeded the commercial threshold and the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation to rebut the presumption of guilt

Regarding the applicant's plea for bail due to delay, the Court applied the Vigin K. Varghese principle, noting that the seriousness of the offence involving commercial quantities outweighs the duration of judicial custody

Furthermore, the Court noted that the trial was actively in progress with four witnesses already examined, and the highest court of the land (the Supreme Court) had previously declined to interfere with the rejection of bail

Consequently, no new grounds or changes in circumstances were found to justify a departure from the earlier rejections

It held that neither the period of incarceration nor the status of the trial warranted bail given the commercial quantity involved and the previous rejections on merit

However, the Court directed the trial court to make an earnest endeavor to conclude the trial within six months from the receipt of the order