Long custody and parity cannot justify bail for commercial-quantity NDPS offences without Section 37 satisfaction.

The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in connection with Sonepur P.S. Case No. 129 of 2025, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 26 of 2025, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Sonepur.

He was charged under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, concerning the alleged transportation of 745 kg of ganja in an Ashok Leyland container bearing registration no. CG-04-JC-9085.

The petitioner claimed that he was merely the vehicle’s helper, that the co-accused owner-driver had already been granted bail, and that he had remained in custody for a substantial period.

He further submitted that only two witnesses had been fully examined and the third witness had been partly examined, with no witness examined for approximately one year.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the alleged quantity was commercial, thereby attracting the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the grounds of prolonged custody and the alleged delay in trial despite the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act to an offence involving commercial quantity?

Whether bail could be granted to the petitioner on the ground of parity with the co-accused who had already been granted bail, without a finding satisfying the conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act?

Whether the materials on record established the requisite satisfaction under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for grant of bail?

The Court applied Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent and mandatory conditions for granting bail where the alleged offence involves commercial quantity: the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and that he is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

The Court relied on State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 421, holding that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 must be read alongside, and not in displacement of, Section 37 in commercial-quantity NDPS cases.

It also relied on Narcotic Control Bureau v. Mohit Agarwal, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 891, for the rule that prolonged custody, filing of the chargesheet, or commencement of trial, by themselves, are not persuasive grounds for bail under Section 37.

Further, Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2018) 13 SCC 813, was applied for the principle that parity cannot justify bail in a commercial-quantity NDPS case unless the Court independently records satisfaction of the mandatory requirements of Section 37.

The alleged recovery of 745 kg of ganja was substantially above the commercial quantity threshold, making Section 37 of the NDPS Act applicable.

Although the petitioner relied on prolonged incarceration, the slow progress of trial, and the bail granted to the co-accused, the Court held that these considerations could not override the statutory requirements under Section 37.

The Court noted that the petitioner was allegedly apprehended at the spot and was implicated in transporting the contraband.

On scrutiny of the materials, the Court found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds for believing that he was not guilty or that he would not commit an offence while on bail.

The Court also held that the co-accused’s bail order did not establish parity because the mandatory Section 37 conditions had not been shown to have been satisfied in the petitioner’s case.

It held that prolonged custody, the progress of trial, and parity with a co-accused were insufficient to warrant bail in the absence of satisfaction of the mandatory conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Finding that the petitioner had not satisfied those conditions, the Court rejected the bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS and disposed of BLAPL No. 1307 of 2026.