Prolonged incarceration alone does not justify bail when UAPA and NDPS twin conditions remain unsatisfied.

On 20 September 2020, security forces recovered 61.420 kg of heroin, opium, firearms and ammunition near the International Border in the Arnia sector; the investigation was later transferred to the NIA.

The appellant was charged under the NDPS Act, the UA(P) Act and Section 120-B IPC. The prosecution alleged that he was a central figure in a cross-border smuggling module that financed Babbar Khalsa International (BKI), and relied, among other material, on protected-witness statements, a BKI letter pad recovered from his house and bags allegedly procured by him.

The Special Judge, NIA, Jammu dismissed his bail application on 16 October 2025. The appellant challenged that order, relying on prolonged incarceration, delay, parity with bailed co-accused, absence of recovery from him and the alleged inadmissibility of disclosure statements.

1. Whether the appellant could be granted bail despite the restrictions under Section 43-D(5) of the UA(P) Act and Section 37 of the NDPS Act, in light of the material alleged against him.

2. Whether prolonged incarceration and the asserted delay in trial justified bail notwithstanding those statutory restrictions.

3. Whether the appellant was entitled to bail on parity with co-accused who had been released.

Section 43-D(5) of the UA(P) Act and Section 37 of the NDPS Act impose statutory restrictions on bail: the court must be satisfied, on the applicable statutory test, that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty; the NDPS provision also requires consideration of whether the accused is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

At this stage, the court assesses the accusation on the basis of broad probabilities and the material viewed as a whole, without conducting a detailed evidentiary determination or deciding admissibility.

The court relied on *Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab*, AIR 2024 SC 952, and *Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif*, (2024) 11 SCC 372, concerning the restrictive statutory bail framework, and cited *State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh alias Gora*, (2026) 7 SCC 513, on the mandatory NDPS conditions.

Parity is not automatic and requires comparison of each accused’s role and degree of involvement.

The court distinguished *Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb*, (2021) 3 SCC 713, in addressing delay in a case where material witnesses remained to be examined.

The Court found prima facie material connecting the appellant to the alleged conspiracy, including protected-witness statements, the BKI letter pad recovered from his home and the distinctive bags allegedly purchased for carrying money; further material witnesses and expert evidence remained to be examined.

On that record, it held that the statutory conditions for bail were not met.

It rejected delay and incarceration as sufficient grounds in the circumstances, noting the gravity of the alleged offences and the ongoing trial.

It also found the appellant’s alleged role as organiser and fund-raiser materially more prominent than the roles attributed to bailed co-accused, so parity did not apply.

It directed that its observations should not prejudice the trial and expected the trial court to expedite proceedings by fixing an appropriate witness-recording calendar.