In NDPS commercial quantity cases, long incarceration alone is not a sufficient ground for granting bail.

The applicant, a scrap dealer, filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

He was arrested on 08.08.2025 in connection with Crime No. 551/2025 for allegedly purchasing a stolen brass statue from co-accused persons for Rs. 7,200/-, which was subsequently used by said co-accused to purchase commercial quantities of narcotic injections

While the applicant was acquitted in the related theft case (Crime No. 531/2025) on 31.01.2026

he remains charged under the NDPS Act for abetment.

His first bail application was rejected on merits on 31.10.2025

The applicant sought bail citing long incarceration and the slow progress of the trial, noting only 5 of 12 witnesses have been examined

Whether the acquittal of the applicant in the predicate offense (theft/dishonest receipt of stolen property) and his period of incarceration constitute a "change in circumstances" sufficient to grant bail in a case involving commercial quantities of narcotics under the NDPS Act.

The court primarily applied Section 21(c) and Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, regarding punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and abetment of offenses

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

The court noted that although no contraband was directly seized from the applicant, the co-accused were found with commercial quantities of Buprenorphine and Pheniramine Maleate injections, and the applicant is implicated via Section 29 for abetting the transaction

The court reasoned that the rejection of the first bail application on merits remains a significant hurdle

Applying the precedent from Vigin K. Varghese, the court determined that the applicant's incarceration since August 2025 and the pending examination of seven remaining witnesses do not outweigh the statutory rigors and the gravity of the offense involving commercial quantities

The court found no new "good ground" to deviate from its previous refusal of bail

The Court held that despite the applicant's acquittal in the connected theft case and his ongoing incarceration, the merits of the NDPS charge and the commercial quantity involved preclude the grant of bail at this stage

The trial court was directed to receive a copy of the order for compliance