Prolonged Incarceration and Procedural Lapses in Seizure Overcome Section 37 Rigours Under Article 21

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) following his arrest on February 17, 2023

On February 16, 2023, based on secret information, police intercepted the applicant and co-accused Faijan in Narela, Delhi

A search led to the recovery of 22.564 kilograms of ganja from a plastic bag carried by the applicant

The prosecution alleged the total recovery (including that from the co-accused) was 27.632 kilograms, constituting a commercial quantity

The applicant remained in custody for over 3 years and 3 months, while only 9 of 17 prosecution witnesses had been examined

1. Whether the prolonged pre-trial incarceration of the applicant for over three years warrants the grant of bail despite the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

2. Whether the lack of independent public witnesses and the absence of photography or videography during the seizure create reasonable doubt sufficient for the grant of bail.

The Court applied the stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), which require the Court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty

This was balanced against the constitutional guarantee of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as interpreted in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, which mandates that Section 37 cannot be applied to cause indefinite incarceration

The Court also relied on the evidentiary principles established in Bantu v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, holding that the absence of photography, videography, or independent witnesses during a seizure—even for offenses prior to the BNSS—casts doubt on the prosecution's case

The Court observed that while the quantity recovered was commercial, the statutory restrictions on bail must yield to the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21

The applicant had been in custody for 39 months with the trial unlikely to conclude soon

Regarding the merits, the Court found it significant that the seizure occurred in a public area near a Police Colony, yet no independent witnesses were joined

Furthermore, the failure to document the seizure through photography or videography, despite the ubiquity of mobile technology, weakened the reliability of the recovery process at the prima facie stage

The Court also noted the applicant is a person with a disability and his prior involvements did not concern the NDPS Act

The application was allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety, subject to conditions including surrendering his passport, maintaining an active mobile number, and not contacting witnesses