Prolonged incarceration and filing of charge-sheet justify bail under NDPS Act despite existing criminal antecedents.

On May 28, 2025, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of P.S. Civil Lines, Raipur, allegedly recovered 10 kilograms of cannabis (Ganja) from the possession of the applicant

The applicant was arrested and charged under Section 21(b)(ii)(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act

The investigation concluded with the filing of a charge-sheet on July 22, 2025, and charges were subsequently framed on August 19, 2025

The applicant has remained in judicial custody since the date of his arrest

The applicant moved for regular bail, arguing that mandatory procedures under Section 52A of the NDPS Act were violated, the seizure was mechanically recorded, and he was the sole breadwinner for his family

The State opposed the application, highlighting that the applicant has seven previous criminal antecedents

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the duration of his detention and the status of the trial

Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which provides the High Court with the power to grant bail

Section 21(b)(ii)(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985

The court considered the procedural requirements for seizure and evidence sanctity under Section 52A of the NDPS Act

Consequences of dereliction of duty under Section 59 of the Act

The court integrated conditions related to trial attendance as per Sections 269, 84, 209, and 351 of the BNSS/Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

The Court balanced the gravity of the alleged offense against the applicant’s period of incarceration, noting he had been in custody for nearly ten months

It observed that since the charge-sheet had already been filed and the investigation was complete, the necessity of continued detention was diminished

Although the State argued against bail based on the applicant's seven criminal antecedents, the Court found that the likelihood of the trial taking a considerable amount of time justified the grant of bail to prevent indefinite incarceration

The Court noted that the applicant was not deemed a threat to witnesses or likely to tamper with evidence if released under strict conditions

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties

The bail is subject to several conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must be present for all trial dates (specifically for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS), and is warned that any misuse of liberty or failure to appear will result in proceedings under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita