Inordinate trial delay and completion of material witness testimony justify bail despite statutory restrictions under special laws.

The case originates from the seizure of 2988.21 Kgs of heroin at Mundra Port, Gujarat, imported from Afghanistan via Iran

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the probe and filed multiple chargesheets

The Appellant (Accused No. 24) was arrested on 25.08.2022

His initial bail applications were rejected by the Sessions Court and the High Court in March 2024

Upon appeal, the Supreme Court monitored the trial, directing the NIA Court to frame charges and examine 24 "vulnerable" witnesses

On 13.05.2025, the Supreme Court denied bail but granted the Appellant liberty to renew his plea after six months or if the trial progressed substantially

Despite directions, the NIA delayed submitting an additional list of sensitive witnesses for nine months, only doing so during the current proceedings

By March 2026, all 23 additional sensitive witnesses relevant to the Appellant's role were examined

The Appellant has remained in custody for approximately 40 months

1. Whether inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial and prolonged incarceration (3 years and 8 months) entitle the Appellant to bail, notwithstanding the statutory rigors of the NDPS Act and UAPA.

2. Whether the completion of the testimony of all material and sensitive witnesses relevant to the Appellant removes the risk of witness tampering and justifies his release.

The court applied the twin conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA

It relied on the principle that the statutory embargo on bail must yield to the "overarching mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution" when incarceration becomes punitive due to inordinate delay

The Court followed Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2023) 18 SCC 166], which established that Section 436A of the CrPC (maximum period for undertrials) applies to Special Acts like the NDPS Act to protect personal liberty

Furthermore, it cited Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, affirming that the more rigorous the act, the quicker the adjudication must be

The Court observed that while the Supreme Court had previously denied bail on merits, it specifically allowed for a renewed plea after six months to balance the prosecution's need to examine core witnesses with the accused's right to liberty

The NIA failed to comply with the Supreme Court's timeline for filing additional witness lists, effectively doubling the time envisaged for witness examination

Critically, the Court noted that as of 23.03.2026, all 23 sensitive witnesses cited against the Appellant had been examined

Consequently, the risk of the Appellant influencing these witnesses—which justified his detention during the trial's early stages—no longer exists

The Court reasoned that since the trial involves several other accused and hundreds of witnesses, it will not conclude soon; thus, continuing the Appellant’s detention after his relevant evidence is already on record would be "unfair" and "punitive"

The Court held that the completion of the testimony of all sensitive witnesses, coupled with the 40-month incarceration and the NIA’s failure to adhere to the Supreme Court's timelines, warranted release under Article 21

The release is subject to conditions fixed by the NIA Court to secure the Appellant's presence at hearings

The Court clarified that this order is based on the "peculiar facts" of the case and the Supreme Court's specific liberty and cannot be used as a precedent for parity by other co-accused