Prolonged incarceration and slow trial override Section 37 NDPS rigours under Article 21 constitutional guarantee.

The applicant was apprehended on 23.04.2024 at Anand Vihar Railway Station, Delhi, after arriving from Bihar via the West Bengal Sampark Kranti Express.

A search of his backpack revealed 2.024 kg of opium.

Following his disclosure, two co-accused were apprehended at 2:00 PM at New Delhi Railway Station arriving on a different train, carrying an additional 2.028 kg of opium.

The prosecution clubbed these recoveries to allege a "commercial quantity" (totaling 4.052 kg), thereby invoking the rigorous bail conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, having completed over two years in judicial custody.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, considering his period of incarceration and the progress of the trial.

2. Whether the quantities recovered from the applicant and the co-accused on different trains and at different times can be clubbed to constitute a commercial quantity.

Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which mandates that bail for commercial quantities requires "reasonable grounds" to believe the accused is not guilty.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial.

The court need only adopt a prima facie standard of innocence rather than a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt as established in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha.

A harmonious reading of Section 37 and Article 21 as directed in State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora.

The Court observed that the applicant had been in custody for over 25 months, while only 2 out of 15 prosecution witnesses had been examined, indicating a prolonged trial.

Regarding the merits, the Court noted a prima facie inconsistency in the prosecution's case: the order on charge stated the accused were traveling together on the same train, whereas the record showed they arrived at different stations and times on different trains.

This discrepancy cast "sufficient prima facie doubt" on the legality of clubbing the recoveries—without which the quantity attributed to the applicant (2.024 kg) would be an "intermediate quantity," making Section 37 inapplicable.

Consequently, the Court found that the constitutional guarantee of liberty under Article 21 outweighed the statutory restrictions of the NDPS Act in this instance.

The Court held that when a trial is unlikely to conclude expeditiously and there are prima facie doubts regarding the applicability of "commercial quantity" rigours, the applicant’s right to liberty must prevail.

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 and maintaining an active mobile connection for the Investigating Officer.