Prolonged custody and absence of NDPS antecedents can satisfy Section 37 bail conditions.

The petitioners, Lankeswar Digal and Dibyasingh Pradhan, sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with OIC Excise Station, Nayagarh PR No. 203 of 2025–26, corresponding to Spl. 2(a) CC Case No. 01 of 2026 (TR Case No. 70 of 2026), pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nayagarh.

They were charged under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, concerning the alleged possession of 21 kilograms of contraband ganja.

The petitioners had been in custody since 3 January 2026; the prosecution report had been filed, but the trial had not commenced.

During hearing, their counsel submitted that bail would be withheld if either petitioner was found to have a criminal antecedent involving an offence under the NDPS Act.

1. Whether the petitioners should be granted bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, despite the alleged offence involving a commercial quantity of ganja under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.

2. Whether, in view of the petitioners’ custody period, filing of the prosecution report, anticipated delay in trial, and asserted absence of NDPS-related criminal antecedents, the conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act could be treated as satisfied.

3. Whether the bail order should be made conditional upon verification of the petitioners’ criminal antecedents for offences under the NDPS Act.

The Court exercised its bail jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The alleged possession of 21 kilograms of ganja attracted Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, relating to possession of a commercial quantity of cannabis.

Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantities; the Court held that, on the peculiar facts, those conditions could be considered satisfied if the petitioners had no criminal antecedent involving an offence under the NDPS Act.

No judicial precedent was expressly relied upon.

The Court considered that the petitioners had remained in custody since 3 January 2026, the prosecution report had already been submitted, and the trial had not yet commenced and was likely to take further time.

It also took into account the petitioners’ claim that they had no criminal antecedents of a similar nature and their counsel’s specific undertaking that the benefit of bail would not be claimed if such antecedents were discovered.

Balancing these circumstances against the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court found that the petitioners could be treated as satisfying the statutory bail requirements, subject to verification of their NDPS-related antecedents.

The Court expressly refrained from making any assessment on the merits of the prosecution case.

The benefit of the order was expressly made conditional upon verification that the concerned petitioner had no criminal antecedent involving an offence under the NDPS Act; if such antecedent was found, the bail order would not operate in his favour.

Both applications were accordingly disposed of, and the order was directed to be communicated electronically to the concerned court and jail authorities.