Second Bail Application in NDPS Case Rejected as No Change in Circumstances Establish Grounds for Commercial Quantity Release

The applicant was arrested on 27.08.2024 following a police raid at Mini Basti, Jarhabhata, where authorities seized commercial quantities of Buprenorphine injections (46 ml), Nitrazepam tablets (130), and Alprazolam tablets (525)

Crime No. 785/2024 was registered under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act.

The applicant’s first bail application (MCRC No. 8539/2025) was rejected on its merits on 28.10.2025

The applicant filed this second bail application on the grounds of prolonged judicial custody and the fact that only 7 out of 17 prosecution witnesses had been examined

1. Whether the delay in the trial and the examination of only a portion of the prosecution witnesses constitute sufficient "new grounds" to grant bail in a case involving commercial quantities of contraband under the NDPS Act.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the power to grant bail

Substantively, the case is governed by Sections 21 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which prescribe stringent conditions for bail when commercial quantities are involved

The Court also considered the procedural mandate for the expeditious conclusion of trials where the accused is in custody

The Court evaluated the gravity of the offense, noting that the seized substances fell within the "commercial quantity" category, which triggers a higher threshold for bail eligibility

Although the applicant argued that the trial was proceeding slowly, the Court reviewed a personal affidavit from the Director General of Police and a status report from the Special Judge (NDPS Act). These documents indicated that 6 witnesses had been recorded and the trial was actively progressing, with the next hearing already scheduled

The Court reasoned that since the previous bail application was rejected on merits and the trial was not stagnated—with only a few witnesses remaining—there was no justification to alter the previous decision at this stage

The final holding determined that the nature of the offense and the commercial quantity of the seizure outweighed the applicant's plea regarding the duration of custody, especially as the trial was nearing its final stages

The Court directed the trial court to make an earnest endeavor to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within two months