Prolonged incarceration and clean antecedents justify bail for woman in NDPS commercial quantity case.

The applicant was arrested on October 25, 2024, following a police raid based on secret information, which led to the seizure of 100 pieces of Buprenorphine Injection (2 ml each) and 100 pieces of Avil Injection (10 ml each) from her possession.

A case was registered under Section 22(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

The applicant’s first bail application was rejected on merits by the High Court on March 11, 2025.

In this second application, the applicant argued for bail citing her gender, her incarceration period of over 17 months, the lack of criminal antecedents, and the slow progress of the trial, noting that out of 14 prosecution witnesses, only five had been examined, two of whom turned hostile.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the recovery of a commercial quantity of contraband under the NDPS Act.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

It also considered the stringent provisions of Section 22(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985, regarding the possession of commercial quantities of psychotropic substances.

Additionally, the court referenced procedural and substantive compliance requirements under Sections 84, 209, 269, and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and BNSS regarding trial conduct and bail liberty.

The court acknowledged that while the applicant’s previous bail was rejected on merits and the contraband exceeded commercial quantity, new circumstances warranted relief.

The court placed significant weight on the applicant’s status as a woman and her prolonged detention since October 2024.

It further analyzed the trial's status, observing that the prosecution had examined less than half of its witnesses and that two had already failed to support the prosecution’s case.

The court concluded that because the applicant had no prior criminal record and the trial was unlikely to conclude imminently, the rigors of the NDPS Act’s bail restrictions were mitigated by the right to a timely trial and the specific facts of the applicant's profile.

The holding was contingent upon the applicant furnishing a personal bond with two sureties.

The court imposed several conditions, including: (i) an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments; (ii) mandatory presence at all trial dates; and (iii) strict appearance requirements for charge framing and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS, warning that default would constitute an abuse of the liberty of bail.