NDPS bail granted where accused lack similar antecedents and prolonged custody delays commencement of trial.

The petitioners sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Gunupur P.S. Case No. 257 of 2025, corresponding to T.R. Case No. 77 of 2025, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gunupur.

They were accused under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, principally for allegedly transporting 47 kilograms of ganja on motorcycle bearing registration no. CG-13X-7542.

The petitioners had been in custody since 19/20 November 2025, and a charge-sheet had been filed; however, the trial had not commenced and involved 21 charge-sheeted witnesses.

Their counsel submitted that the petitioners had no criminal antecedents and undertook that bail would be withheld if any antecedent involving an offence under the NDPS Act were found.

Whether the petitioners should be granted bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in a prosecution under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act involving 47 kilograms of ganja.

Whether, in the circumstances, the petitioners could be treated as satisfying the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, subject to verification of their criminal antecedents.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning the High Court’s power to grant bail, and Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act, relating to possession/transport of commercial quantities of cannabis and criminal conspiracy or abetment.

Since the alleged quantity was commercial, Section 37 of the NDPS Act governed bail, requiring satisfaction of the statutory twin conditions.

The Court held that, in the peculiar circumstances, the petitioners could be considered to have satisfied Section 37 if verification established that they had no criminal antecedent involving an offence under the NDPS Act.

The Court considered the petitioners’ prolonged custody from November 2025, submission of the charge-sheet, the fact that the trial had not commenced, and the presence of 21 prosecution witnesses, indicating that the trial would take considerable time.

It also took into account the petitioners’ claim of having no criminal antecedents and their counsel’s express undertaking that the benefit of bail would not be claimed if NDPS antecedents were discovered.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court treated the statutory requirements under Section 37 as satisfied conditionally, subject to verification of the petitioners’ antecedents.

The order was expressly made subject to verification of criminal antecedents; if any petitioner was found to have an antecedent involving an offence under the NDPS Act, the benefit of the order would not extend to that petitioner.

Both BLAPLs were accordingly disposed of.