Prolonged incarceration does not justify NDPS bail where Section 37 conditions fail and absconding risk is substantial.

On 7 December 2020, the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), assisted by Assam Rifles, conducted searches at two adjacent premises in Moreh, Manipur, on information regarding clandestine manufacture and processing of methamphetamine. From the first premises, the authorities allegedly recovered approximately 81.3 kg of methamphetamine, a firearm, ammunition, mobile phones, currency and other articles. From the second premises, allegedly occupied by Waipho, Accused No. 3, and in which Manglinhao Zou, Accused No. 5, was present, the authorities allegedly recovered 86.07 kg of methamphetamine tablets and powder, 29.5 kg of methamphetamine ice crystal, 12.5 kg of crude methamphetamine, large quantities of Tramadol, Pregabalin and Buprenorphine-related tablets, a pistol and ammunition, and other articles.

The petitioners were arrested in connection with NCB Crime No. 05/04/NCB/Imp/WY/CL/2020 for offences under Sections 22(c), 23, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), and a charge-sheet was filed on 29 May 2021.

Both petitioners remained in custody from 7 December 2020 and had not previously been released on bail. They filed the present applications under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, principally relying on prolonged incarceration and delay in conclusion of the trial.

The prosecution stated that six prosecution witnesses had been examined and cross-examined, and that the trial had reached the stage of examination of the accused. It attributed further delay to the absconding of Accused Nos. 1, 4 and 6, who had earlier been granted bail. The prosecution further submitted that the trial against the remaining accused could be segregated and completed shortly.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail despite the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, considering their alleged involvement in offences involving commercial quantities of narcotic and psychotropic substances?

Whether the petitioners’ incarceration for more than five years and the delay in conclusion of the trial justified release on bail under Article 21 of the Constitution?

Whether the likelihood of the petitioners absconding, particularly because Accused No. 3 was a foreign national and Accused No. 5 resided near the Myanmar border, militated against the grant of bail?

The court applied Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes a stringent, mandatory bar on bail in cases involving commercial quantities: the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

It relied on Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, (2024) 11 SCC 372, for the proposition that the twin conditions under Section 37 are mandatory and that bail is exceptional in serious NDPS offences.

The court also considered Article 21 and the right to a speedy trial, referring to Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731, Shariful Islam v. State of West Bengal, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2069, Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 918, and Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109, which recognize that prolonged incarceration may, in appropriate cases, justify bail notwithstanding Section 37.

However, under Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225, and P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578, speedy-trial claims must be assessed contextually; no inflexible time-limit governs every criminal trial.

The court also considered State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh alias Billa, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1058, regarding the mandatory consideration of Section 37 and the relevance of absconding risk and the interests of justice.

The court accepted that the petitioners had remained in custody for more than five years, but held that prolonged incarceration did not automatically warrant bail in the circumstances of the case.

The alleged recoveries were of extremely large commercial quantities of methamphetamine and other psychotropic substances, attracting the stringent requirements of Section 37. The court found no sufficient basis at that stage to conclude that the petitioners were not guilty or that they were unlikely to commit a similar offence if released.

Although the trial had been pending for several years, the prosecution had completed the evidence of all six witnesses, and the remaining delay was substantially connected with the absconding of three co-accused who had earlier secured bail. The court accepted the prosecution’s submission that steps were being taken to segregate the trial of the available accused and that the trial could thereafter be concluded within a short period.

The court further considered the petitioners’ circumstances: Accused No. 3 was a Myanmar national and Accused No. 5 resided near the international border. Since three co-accused had already absconded after obtaining bail, the court found a substantial likelihood that the petitioners might also flee to Myanmar, making their re-arrest difficult.

These factors outweighed the petitioners’ claim based on Article 21 and prolonged custody.

Accordingly, Bail Application Nos. 2 and 3 of 2026 were rejected.