Prolonged custody and delayed trial justified conditional bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, absent similar antecedents.

The petitioners, Aman Kumar Digal @ Amal Digal and Rakesh Digal, sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Biridi P.S. Case No. 311 of 2025, corresponding to C.T. Case No. 389 of 2025, pending before the Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jagatsinghpur.

They were accused of transporting 28.335 kilograms of contraband ganja in a Swift car bearing registration no. OD-05-BB-0845, attracting Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The petitioners had been in custody since 15 December 2025; although the charge-sheet had been filed, the trial had not commenced and sixteen witnesses had been charge-sheeted.

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.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS despite the accusation of an offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act involving commercial quantity of ganja?

Whether the petitioners’ custody period, filing of the charge-sheet, delay in commencement of trial, and claimed absence of similar NDPS antecedents justified a finding that the conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were satisfied?

Whether bail should be made subject to verification of the petitioners’ criminal antecedents for similar offences under the NDPS Act?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail, together with Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for bail in cases involving specified serious offences and commercial quantities.

The Court treated the absence of criminal antecedents for similar NDPS offences, the petitioners’ prolonged custody, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likely delay arising from the number of prosecution witnesses as relevant circumstances for considering satisfaction of Section 37.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The alleged recovery of 28.335 kilograms of ganja attracted the stringent bail framework under the NDPS Act.

However, the petitioners had remained in custody since 15 December 2025, the investigation had concluded with submission of the charge-sheet, and the trial had not yet commenced despite sixteen charge-sheeted witnesses, indicating that the proceedings would take time.

Their counsel expressly undertook that bail would not be pressed or extended if either petitioner was found to have a criminal antecedent involving a similar NDPS offence.

On these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court considered the petitioners to have satisfied the requirements of Section 37, subject to verification of their antecedents.

The benefit of the order was expressly made conditional: it would not extend to either petitioner if verification revealed a criminal antecedent involving a similar offence under the NDPS Act.

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