Prolonged Incarceration Does Not Mitigate Section 37 NDPS Rigours Where Trial Progress Is Substantial

The petitioner was apprehended on December 11, 2021, at Mansar Morh, Samba, while traveling in a truck where the Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB) recovered 5.600 kg of charas (commercial quantity).

The petitioner was charged under Sections 8, 20, 29, and 60 of the NDPS Act on May 18, 2024.

After his initial bail application was rejected by the Trial Court on November 4, 2025, due to the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner moved the High Court seeking bail on the grounds of false implication, lack of direct evidence, and prolonged incarceration violating Article 21 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS despite the statutory rigors and "twin conditions" prescribed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

2. Whether prolonged incarceration and the progress of the trial (6 out of 10 witnesses examined) constitute sufficient grounds to bypass the restrictions on bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics.

Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which mandates that bail for commercial quantities can only be granted if the court is satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail.

NCB v. Mohit Aggarwal (2022), establishing that delay in trial or length of custody are not, by themselves, persuasive grounds to override Section 37.

State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora (2026), which held that the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) are mandatory and entail no relaxation for prolonged incarceration.

State of Kerala v. Rajesh (2020), which defined "reasonable grounds" as substantial probable causes rather than mere prima facie grounds.

The court found that the recovery of a commercial quantity (5.600 kg of charas) from the vehicle where the petitioner was present triggered the statutory bar under Section 37.

The court rejected the petitioner’s argument regarding prolonged incarceration, noting that the trial had progressed significantly with six out of ten witnesses already examined.

Unlike the precedent in Rajadurai v. State of Tamil Nadu, where no witnesses had been examined, the court observed that the trial here is nearing completion.

The court determined it could not reach a finding that "reasonable grounds" existed to believe the petitioner was not guilty, especially since material witnesses were yet to testify and their testimony was crucial to the outcome.

Minor contradictions in witness statements were deemed matters for trial rather than grounds for bail.

The court held that substantial progress in the trial outweighed the plea for release based on the duration of custody. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the bail application, finding it devoid of merit.