In NDPS commercial-quantity cases, long incarceration cannot by itself be a ground for grant of bail.

The applicants were arrested in connection with Crime No. 310/2024 for allegedly transporting narcotic substances.

On 20.10.2024, police intercepted a vehicle containing 34.300 kg of Ganja.

Co-accused statements implicated the applicants as "pilots" assisting the transport in a separate vehicle.

This is the applicants' second bail application after their previous applications (MCRC No. 8742/2025 and MCRC No. 657/2026) were rejected on merits.

The applicants sought bail on grounds of prolonged incarceration (since late 2024), slow trial progress (only 5 of 21 witnesses examined), and the fact that independent seizure witnesses turned hostile.

Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, based on the grounds of prolonged incarceration and hostile witnesses despite the commercial quantity involved.

The Court primarily applied Sections 20(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, regarding the possession and conspiracy to transport commercial quantities of contraband.

It strictly adhered to the principle established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Vigin K. Varghese (2025), which dictates that in NDPS cases involving commercial quantities, long incarceration cannot, by itself, be a ground for grant of bail.

The Court noted that the seized quantity (34.300 kg of Ganja) exceeds the "commercial quantity" threshold defined under the NDPS Act.

Although the applicants argued that their incarceration (since October/December 2024) and the hostility of prosecution witnesses (PW-2 to PW-5) warranted relief, the Court emphasized that their previous bail applications had already been rejected on merits.

Applying the Vigin K. Varghese precedent, the Court reasoned that the gravity of the offence and the statutory rigors of the NDPS Act outweigh the "long incarceration" argument at this stage.

The Court found no "good ground" to deviate from its prior rejections, especially since the trial is currently in progress.

It held that the commercial quantity of the contraband and the nature of the allegations precluded bail regardless of the period of custody.

The Court directed the trial court to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously and ordered a copy of the judgment to be sent for compliance.