Regular bail granted on prolonged custody, delayed trial, and seizure witnesses turning hostile.

On 22 September 2024, the police allegedly seized 5 kg 300 grams of ganja from co-accused Sahas Ram Vishwakarma and the applicant, Ramkhilawan Vishwakarma, at Forest Naka, Sirpur, alleging illegal transportation of the contraband.

The applicant was arrested in Crime No. 74/2024 registered at Police Station Baloda, District Mahasamund, for an offence under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. His first bail application was dismissed on merits on 27 January 2025.

In the second bail application, the applicant relied on the fact that the seizure witnesses had not supported the prosecution, only five of the fifteen listed witnesses had been examined by 25 July 2026, and he had remained in custody since 9 November 2024.

The State opposed bail, alleging that the applicant had been transporting the ganja on a motorcycle, fled on seeing the police, and had another case of a similar nature registered against him.

The applicant also submitted that co-accused Sahasram Vishwakarma, from whose possession the contraband was seized, had been granted bail.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, notwithstanding the dismissal of his earlier bail application on merits.

2. Whether changed circumstances—including the examination of seizure witnesses, the applicant’s period of detention, the pace of trial, and the grant of bail to the co-accused—justified allowing the second bail application.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, in relation to the allegation under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature of the allegation, the material available on record, the applicant’s period of custody, the likely time required for conclusion of the trial, and the changed circumstances after dismissal of the earlier application.

The Court granted bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The Court found that circumstances subsequent to the rejection of the first bail application warranted reconsideration. The seizure witnesses had been examined and had not supported the prosecution, only five of fifteen witnesses had been examined by 25 July 2026, and the applicant had remained in custody since 9 November 2024.

The Court also considered that the trial was likely to take further time and that the co-accused from whose possession the contraband was seized had been granted bail.

Balancing these factors against the nature of the allegation and the material on record, the Court held that the applicant could be released on bail without entering into the merits of the case.

The applicant was directed to be released on regular bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹25,000 with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and to comply with the consequences prescribed for absence or misuse of bail.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance.