Prolonged incarceration without trial progress outweighs statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The applicant, Sumit Jawarkar, was arrested on March 13, 2025, after being intercepted as a pillion rider on a motorcycle in Jabalpur. A search of his shoulder bag revealed 11.618 kg of Cannabis (Ganja), leading to charges under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

This was his fifth bail application; previous applications were either dismissed as withdrawn or rejected.

The applicant had completed 15 months of judicial custody, during which only three out of fifteen prosecution witnesses had been examined, and two independent seizure witnesses failed to support the prosecution’s case.

1. Whether the prolonged pre-trial incarceration of the applicant, despite the restrictive provisions of the NDPS Act, violates the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail based on the lack of criminal antecedents, his age, and the slow progress of the trial.

Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to bail provisions) and Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, which imposes a rigorous bar on granting bail for commercial or intermediate quantities of contraband.

The constitutional principle established in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which holds that statutory restrictions in penal laws cannot override the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The precedent from Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh, affirming that prolonged incarceration without trial conclusion justifies conditional liberty despite the NDPS embargo.

The Court noted that while the quantity of contraband seized was substantial, the applicant had been in custody for over a year with no significant progress in the trial, as only 3 of 15 witnesses were examined.

Justice Kalgaonkar observed that the primary seizure witnesses (PW-2 and PW-3) did not support the prosecution, weakening the immediate case for continued detention.

The Court emphasized that for a young applicant (aged 18) with no prior criminal record, "jail incarceration without proper progress in trial causes hardship" and infringes upon Article 21.

It reasoned that since the applicant is a laborer with strong roots in the community, there was no significant risk of him fleeing or tampering with remaining evidence.

The application was allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 75,000/- with one solvent surety subject to specific conditions including mandatory attendance and prohibition on committing similar offences.