Prolonged custody and trial delay can satisfy Section 37 NDPS bail conditions absent similar antecedents.

The petitioners, Biswajit Nahak and Ramakanta Nahak, sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Daringbadi P.S. Case No. 83 of 2025, corresponding to C.T. Case No. 102 of 2025, pending before the Special Judge-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Balliguda.

They were charged under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, principally for allegedly transporting 50.400 kg of ganja in a Honda Amaze car along with co-accused persons.

The petitioners had been in custody since 6 May 2025.

Out of 19 charge-sheeted witnesses, only three had been examined, and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon.

Their counsel stated that the petitioners had no criminal antecedents involving offences under the NDPS Act and agreed that bail would be withheld if such antecedents were found.

1. Whether the petitioners should be released on bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, despite the restrictions imposed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, considering their prolonged custody and the slow progress of trial.

2. Whether the benefit of bail should be made conditional upon verification that the petitioners had no criminal antecedents involving 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 Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, under which the alleged transportation of commercial-quantity ganja and related liability were charged.

Because the alleged quantity was commercial, Section 37 of the NDPS Act governed the grant of bail and required satisfaction of its statutory conditions.

The Court held that, in the peculiar circumstances—including prolonged custody, limited examination of prosecution witnesses, the uncertain completion of trial, and the absence of similar NDPS antecedents—the petitioners could be treated as having satisfied the conditions of Section 37, subject to verification of their antecedents.

The Court considered the petitioners’ custody of more than one year and three months against the fact that only three of 19 charge-sheeted witnesses had been examined, making the conclusion of trial uncertain.

It also considered the materials on record and the evidence of the witnesses examined to date, without expressing any final opinion on the merits.

Given the petitioners’ asserted absence of prior NDPS-related criminal cases, and their counsel’s undertaking that bail would not be claimed if such antecedents were discovered, the Court found that the statutory requirements under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were satisfied for the limited purpose of bail.

The relief was therefore made expressly subject to antecedent verification.

The order would not benefit either petitioner if verification disclosed any criminal antecedent involving an offence under the NDPS Act.

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