Prolonged incarceration and hostile seizure witnesses justify bail in NDPS cases notwithstanding statutory commercial quantity restrictions.

The applicant, Lavish, was arrested on November 15, 2024, in connection with Crime No. 514/2024 for offenses under Sections 8/20 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

According to the prosecution, 21 kgs of cannabis (ganja) were recovered from a bag tied to a motorcycle the applicant was operating.

This was the applicant's third bail application; two previous applications were dismissed as withdrawn on August 4, 2025, and November 7, 2025.

Since the last dismissal, independent seizure witnesses Pawan (PW1) and Anand (PW2) were examined but did not support the prosecution’s case.

The applicant, a 20-year-old laborer with no criminal antecedents, had been in judicial custody for approximately one year and four months at the time of this order.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the hostile testimony of independent witnesses and the length of his incarceration.

2. Whether the statutory embargo under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act can be overridden by the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution in cases of prolonged trial.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, governing the grant of bail.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to a speedy trial.

Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) and Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) to establish that constitutional courts may grant bail despite restrictive penal statutes if an accused's fundamental rights are infringed.

The principle from Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024), which states that prolonged incarceration and the failure of panch witnesses to support the prosecution may justify conditional liberty notwithstanding Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act.

The Court noted that while the quantity of contraband seized (21 kgs) was slightly above the commercial threshold, the primary seizure witnesses (PW1 and PW2) failed to support the prosecution’s allegations.

The Court observed that the applicant had been in custody for 16 months and the trial was not progressing at an appropriate pace.

In balancing the statutory restrictions of the NDPS Act against constitutional mandates, the Court reasoned that "prolonged custody is anathema to the fundamental right of life and liberty".

It determined that when a trial is unlikely to conclude soon, the precious fundamental rights under Article 21 must prevail over the statutory embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The Court also took into account the applicant’s youth, his lack of criminal history, and his socio-economic background as a laborer, finding no compelling reason to continue his incarceration.

The holding clarified that the veracity of the prosecution’s case is a matter for trial, but the current circumstances justified release.

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one solvent surety of the same amount, subject to specific conditions including mandatory appearance, prohibition against further offenses, and prohibition against tampering with evidence.