Prolonged custody and delayed trial justified bail under Section 37 absent prior NDPS antecedents.

The petitioners, Vantala Ramu and Killo Jinu, sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Chitrakonda P.S. Case No. 211 of 2024, corresponding to Special G.R. Case No. 197 of 2024, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri.

They were accused of offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, allegedly for escorting, on a motorcycle bearing registration No. AP-37CN-1137, a Bolero pickup vehicle carrying 300 kg of ganja.

The petitioners had been in custody since 14 December 2024.

At the time of hearing, after approximately one year and eight months, only two of twelve prosecution witnesses had been examined and the trial remained incomplete.

No contraband was allegedly recovered from the petitioners’ exclusive possession, and they were not found seated in the Bolero vehicle carrying the contraband.

Their counsel submitted that the petitioners had no criminal antecedents and undertook to withhold the benefit of bail if antecedents involving offences under the NDPS Act were found.

1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, notwithstanding the restrictions imposed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, considering their prolonged custody and the delayed progress of the trial.

2. Whether the absence of recovery from the petitioners’ exclusive possession, their non-presence inside the vehicle carrying the contraband, and the claimed absence of NDPS-related criminal antecedents justified the grant of bail.

3. Whether bail should be made conditional upon verification that the petitioners had no criminal antecedents relating to offences under the NDPS Act.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail.

The alleged offences arose under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act, relating to possession or transportation of commercial-quantity cannabis and criminal conspiracy or abetment.

Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for bail in commercial-quantity cases; the Court held that, on the peculiar facts, the petitioners could be considered to have satisfied those conditions if they had no criminal antecedents involving NDPS offences.

The Court also applied the principles that prolonged incarceration, substantial delay in trial, limited examination of witnesses, and the absence of direct recovery or exclusive possession may justify bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The Court found that the petitioners had remained in custody for more than one year and eight months while only two of twelve witnesses had been examined, indicating significant delay in conclusion of the trial.

It further noted that neither petitioner was alleged to have been in exclusive possession of the contraband or sitting in the Bolero vehicle in which the 300 kg of ganja was found.

These circumstances, combined with the petitioners’ asserted lack of criminal antecedents and the undertaking by counsel to forgo bail if NDPS-related antecedents were discovered, led the Court to treat the requirements of Section 37 as satisfied, subject to verification of such antecedents.

The Court expressly clarified that it was not adjudicating the merits of the accusation.

The order was expressly made subject to verification of the petitioners’ criminal antecedents.

If either petitioner was found to have an antecedent involving an offence under the NDPS Act, the benefit of the order was not to be extended to that petitioner.

The BLAPLs were accordingly disposed of, and a soft copy of the order was directed to be communicated to the trial court and thereafter to the concerned jail.