Long incarceration in NDPS commercial quantity cases is not an independent ground for grant of bail.

The applicant, a police constable, was arrested on 29.10.2024 in connection with Crime No. 316/2025 for allegedly participating in an organized drug trafficking racket.

Following the seizure of 20 kg of ganja from two individuals, investigation by the Anti Crime Cyber Unit (ACCU) revealed that the applicant and other GRP constables would seize contraband during train checks and illegally sell it to private individuals.

The applicant’s first bail application (MCRC No. 316 of 2025) was rejected on 14.01.2025.

A subsequent Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court was dismissed on 29.05.2025, with liberty to apply for bail after the examination of material witnesses.

The applicant now seeks regular bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration and the fact that four witnesses (seizure and memorandum) have turned hostile.

1. Whether the hostile testimony of four witnesses and the applicant's duration of stay in jail constitute sufficient "changed circumstances" to grant bail in a commercial quantity NDPS case.

2. Whether the applicant satisfied the liberty granted by the Supreme Court to apply for bail after the "examination of material witnesses".

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (analogous to Section 439 CrPC) and Sections 20(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

It relied on the principle that witnesses turning hostile during trial is not a per se ground for bail as it may indicate tampering with evidence.

Furthermore, it applied the precedent set in Union of India v. Vigin K. Varghese (2025), which establishes that in cases involving commercial quantities under the NDPS Act, long incarceration cannot, by itself, be a ground for bail.

The court reasoned that the applicant’s role as a serving police official involved in an organized racket, combined with the commercial quantity of the contraband (20 kg), militates against the grant of bail.

It found that the hostile testimony of two seizure and two memorandum witnesses did not justify release, viewing such developments as potential evidence of tampering.

Regarding the Supreme Court's earlier observation, the court noted that since only 4 out of 91 prosecution witnesses had been examined, the "material witnesses" had not yet been sufficiently exhausted to satisfy the condition for re-applying for bail.

Finally, the court applied the Vigin K. Varghese doctrine to conclude that the duration of the applicant’s custody (since October 2024) does not override the statutory rigors of the NDPS Act.

It held that neither the hostility of limited witnesses nor the period of incarceration provided a "good ground" to interfere with the previous rejection on merits, especially given the applicant's status as a law enforcement officer and the volume of remaining witnesses.

The trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings.