Prolonged custody does not override Section 37’s stringent bail conditions in commercial-quantity NDPS cases.

The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in STF P.S. Case No. 18 of 2024, corresponding to C.T. (Spl.) NDPS Case No. 06 of 2024, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Talcher.

He was accused under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on the allegation that he jointly possessed 1 kilogram 120 grams of brown sugar with co-accused persons, a quantity exceeding the commercial-quantity threshold.

The petitioner argued that no contraband had been recovered from his exclusive and conscious possession and that he had remained in custody for more than two years and four months.

The prosecution opposed bail, relying on the alleged joint possession, the commercial quantity involved, and the petitioner’s criminal antecedent in Samal P.S. Case No. 214 of 2023 under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in a case involving alleged possession of commercial quantity of contraband under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

2. Whether the petitioner’s prolonged custody, notwithstanding the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, justified his release on bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS governing the High Court’s power to grant bail.

Since the alleged offence involved commercial quantity, Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied and required the Court, where the Public Prosecutor opposed bail, to be satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accused was not guilty and that he was unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

The Court also relied on State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 421, for the principle that although the right to speedy trial under Article 21 is constitutionally protected, in commercial-quantity NDPS cases it must operate alongside, and not displace, the requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The Court found that the allegation concerned joint possession of 1 kilogram 120 grams of brown sugar, substantially above the commercial-quantity threshold, and that the petitioner was also implicated in a similar NDPS case.

In light of these circumstances, and particularly the prosecution’s opposition and the petitioner’s criminal antecedent, the Court held that he had not established reasonable grounds for believing that he was not guilty or that he was unlikely to commit an offence while on bail, as required by Section 37.

The period of custody exceeding two years and four months did not independently justify bail because the constitutional right to speedy trial could not override the statutory conditions applicable to commercial-quantity offences under the NDPS Act.

Bail was therefore refused at that stage, and the application under Section 483 of the BNSS was rejected and disposed of.

A soft copy of the judgment was directed to be transmitted to the concerned court.