NDPS bail may be granted upon prolonged custody and likely trial delay, subject to verifying absence of similar antecedents.

The two petitioners sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Kalimela P.S. Case No. 56 of 2026, corresponding to Special G.R. Case No. 93 of 2026, pending before the Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri.

They were accused of transporting 22 kilograms of ganja on a motorcycle bearing registration no. AP-40-FD-8256, attracting Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

The petitioners had been in custody since 15 March 2026; although the charge-sheet had been filed, the trial had not commenced and there were 17 charge-sheeted witnesses.

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

1. Whether the petitioners, accused of an offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act involving 22 kilograms of ganja, were entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023.

2. Whether the petitioners could be considered to have satisfied the twin conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act in view of their asserted absence of NDPS-related criminal antecedents, their custody period, and the anticipated delay in trial.

3. Whether bail should be subject to verification of the petitioners’ criminal antecedents and withdrawal of the benefit if similar NDPS antecedents were discovered.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail, and Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, which prescribes punishment for possession or transportation of commercial-quantity cannabis.

Since the alleged quantity was 22 kilograms of ganja, Section 37 of the NDPS Act was applicable, requiring satisfaction of the statutory conditions for bail.

The Court held that, in the peculiar circumstances, the petitioners would be considered to have satisfied Section 37 if verification showed that they had no criminal antecedents relating to NDPS offences.

The Court noted that the petitioners had remained in custody since 15 March 2026 and that, although investigation had concluded with submission of the charge-sheet, the trial had not commenced.

The presence of 17 prosecution witnesses indicated that the proceedings were likely to take considerable time.

Taking these circumstances together with the petitioners’ claim that they had no NDPS-related criminal antecedents, and the specific undertaking by their counsel that bail would not be claimed if such antecedents were found, the Court treated the requirements of Section 37 as satisfied, subject to verification.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court therefore found the petitioners entitled to bail.

A. Laxmipati @ A. Lakshmi Pathi and K. Siba Prasad were directed to be released on bail upon furnishing bonds of ₹1,00,000 each with two solvent sureties for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court conducting the trial, subject to such further terms and conditions as that court considered appropriate.

The benefit of the order was expressly made conditional upon verification that the petitioners had no criminal antecedents involving similar NDPS offences; if such antecedents were found, the bail order would not enure to the concerned petitioner.

Both BLAPLs were accordingly disposed of.