Prolonged Incarceration and Hostile Independent Witnesses Warrant Bail Notwithstanding Statutory Embargo Under NDPS Act

The applicant was arrested on November 16, 2024, in connection with Crime No. 669/2024 at Police Station Alot, District Ratlam, for offences under Sections 8/15 and 29 of the NDPS Act

It is alleged that the applicant and a co-accused were found in joint possession of 57.900 kg of poppy straw

This is the applicant’s fourth bail application; the first three were dismissed as withdrawn, with the third granting liberty to renew the prayer after the examination of seizure witnesses

As of the current date, the applicant has been in custody for approximately one year and four months

Out of 19 prosecution witnesses, only two have been examined, and the trial court indicates the trial may take another nine to ten months to conclude

Whether the applicant is entitled to grant of bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, despite the statutory embargo under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act

Whether prolonged pre-trial incarceration and the hostility of independent seizure witnesses constitute a violation of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, warranting conditional liberty

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 (grant of bail) and Sections 8, 15, 29, and 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act

It relied on the principle from Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024 INSC 534) and Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021), which establishes that Article 21 of the Constitution is sacrosanct and a constitutional court can grant bail despite restrictive statutory provisions if an accused's right to a timely trial is infringed

It further applied Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (SLP Crl. No. 4648/2024), which held that where panch witnesses do not support the prosecution and trial is delayed, the statutory embargo under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act may be overridden by the right to personal liberty

The court observed that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been incarcerated for sixteen months

Crucially, the independent seizure witnesses, Praful (PW1) and Shoaib (PW2), did not support the prosecution’s case during examination

The court noted the slow progress of the trial—only two out of 19 witnesses examined—and the projected timeline of nearly another year for conclusion

Applying the ratio from Ankur Chaudhary, the court reasoned that when independent witnesses fail to support the seizure and trial is prolonged, the "reasonable grounds" requirement of Section 37 NDPS must be balanced against the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21

It concluded that continued incarceration without a foreseeable conclusion to the trial was unjustifiable, especially as the applicant was unlikely to flee or tamper with evidence

The Court held that the statutory restrictions of the NDPS Act do not preclude a constitutional court from granting bail when a trial is not progressing at an appropriate pace and the right to a speedy trial is compromised

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety of the same amount, subject to conditions including regular court attendance, non-involvement in further offences, and non-interference with witnesses