Prolonged custody and delayed trial can satisfy Section 37 where accused lack similar NDPS antecedents.

The petitioners sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Koraput GRPS P.S. Case No. 40 of 2025, corresponding to T.R. Case No. 148 of 2025, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Koraput.

They were charged under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on the allegation that they jointly transported 21 kg 500 grams of ganja in a train.

The petitioners had been in custody since 23 December 2025 and 29 December 2025, respectively; although the charge-sheet had been filed, the trial had not commenced.

Their counsel submitted that the petitioners had no criminal antecedents of a similar nature and undertook that bail should be withheld if such antecedents were found.

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

2. Whether the petitioners’ claimed absence of previous NDPS offences satisfied the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for grant of bail.

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

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant bail.

It further applied Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act, concerning possession or transportation of commercial quantities of cannabis and criminal conspiracy or abetment, respectively.

Since the alleged quantity was commercial, the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied.

The Court held that, in the circumstances of the case, the petitioners would be considered to have satisfied Section 37 if verification established that they had no criminal antecedents involving offences under the NDPS Act.

The Court also treated an acquittal in a criminal case as not constituting a criminal antecedent for purposes of the bail condition.

The Court considered the prolonged custody of the petitioners, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the fact that the trial had not yet commenced and would therefore take additional time.

Although the alleged offence involved commercial quantity and consequently attracted Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioners asserted that they had no prior NDPS cases, and their counsel expressly agreed that bail would not be extended if similar criminal antecedents were discovered.

On that basis, the Court found that the statutory requirements under Section 37 would be regarded as satisfied subject to verification of their antecedents, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

Each petitioner was directed to furnish a bail bond of ₹1,00,000 with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the court in seisin of the case, on such further terms as that court might impose.

The Court clarified that the bail benefit would not operate if any petitioner was found to have a similar NDPS antecedent, but an acquittal would not be treated as such an antecedent.

The BLAPLs were accordingly disposed of.