### Long incarceration in NDPS commercial quantity cases is not an absolute ground for bail.

The applicant, Chudamani Yadav, filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

He was arrested on 17.06.2025 in connection with Crime No. 116/2025 for allegedly possessing commercial quantities of contraband (41 pieces of Onerex and 9 pieces of Winecerax syrup) under the NDPS Act.

His first bail application (MCRC No. 6060 of 2025) was rejected on merits on 01.08.2025.

The applicant sought bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration and the fact that 8 out of 16 prosecution witnesses had turned hostile.

Whether the hostile testimony of prosecution witnesses and the period of incarceration constitute sufficient grounds for granting bail in a case involving commercial quantities under the NDPS Act.

The court applied Section 21(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which prescribe stringent standards for bail in cases involving commercial quantities.

It further relied on the precedent 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 ground for bail.

The court observed that the applicant’s name surfaced through a memorandum statement of a co-accused from whom a commercial quantity of contraband—well above the legal threshold—was recovered.

Although the applicant argued that eight witnesses had turned hostile and that the trial would be lengthy, the court emphasized that the first bail application had already been rejected on merits.

Applying the *Vigin K. Varghese* doctrine, the court reasoned that the nature of the offense and the quantity of the seized substance outweighed the plea of incarceration length.

The court found no "good ground" to deviate from its previous rejection or the statutory rigors of the NDPS Act despite the ongoing status of the trial.

The court held that because the case involved commercial quantities and the previous merit-based rejection stood, the applicant was not entitled to bail solely due to trial delays or hostile witnesses.

The trial court was directed to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously.