Long incarceration alone is not a ground for bail in NDPS commercial quantity cases.

The applicant, Suraj Durga, was arrested on February 1, 2025, following a police raid at Khamtarai, Raipur.

The police seized 1,440 capsules of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus (containing Dicyclomine, Tramadol, and Acetaminophen) weighing 907.20 grams from his possession

The applicant was charged under Section 22(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

A previous bail application (MCRC No. 7213/2025) was rejected on merits on September 10, 2025

The applicant filed this second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, contending that although charges were framed on August 5, 2025, no prosecution witnesses had been examined to date

Section 22(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985, which provides stringent penalties for the possession of commercial quantities of psychotropic substances

legal principle established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) v. Vigin K. Varghese (2025), which holds that in cases involving commercial quantities under the NDPS Act, long incarceration cannot, by itself, serve as a sufficient ground for granting bail

The procedural framework for bail was governed by Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

The Court observed that the quantity of contraband seized (907.20 grams) significantly exceeded the threshold for "commercial quantity," which was the primary reason the applicant's first bail application was rejected on merits

The Court evaluated the applicant's sole new contention—that he had been in jail since February 2025 without any witnesses being examined—against the gravity of the offense

Applying the ratio from Vigin K. Varghese, the Court reasoned that the delay in trial and the period of incarceration do not override the statutory rigors and the seriousness associated with commercial quantity cases under the NDPS Act

the Court found no "new ground" or change in circumstances substantial enough to warrant a departure from its earlier decision

to address the trial delay, the Court directed the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, to ensure that all prosecution witnesses, particularly police personnel, appear before the trial court on the next scheduled date, failing which their salaries should be stopped

The trial court was also directed to conclude the trial expeditiously