Section 37 NDPS bail granted conditionally upon verification of no criminal antecedents and prolonged pre-trial custody.

The three petitioners sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in connection with Dhanupali P.S. Case No. 489 of 2025, corresponding to T.R. Case No. 180 of 2025, pending before the Sessions Judge, Sambalpur.

They were accused of transporting 26 kg and 90 grams of ganja in an Indica car, attracting Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

The petitioners had been in custody since 30 December 2025; the charge-sheet had been filed, but the trial had not commenced and involved 15 charge-sheeted witnesses.

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioners stated that bail would be withheld if any petitioner was found to have a criminal antecedent involving an offence under the NDPS Act.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in a prosecution under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.

Whether, in view of the petitioners’ claimed absence of NDPS-related criminal antecedents, the statutory conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act could be treated as satisfied for granting bail.

Whether bail should be made subject to verification of the petitioners’ criminal antecedents.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant bail, and Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, which prescribes punishment for possession, transportation or other prohibited dealings involving a commercial quantity of cannabis.

Since the alleged quantity was 26 kg and 90 grams of ganja, the case attracted the stringent bail requirements under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The Court proceeded on the principle that, at the bail stage, the statutory conditions under Section 37 may be considered satisfied where the material on record and the absence of similar NDPS criminal antecedents support the conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused may not commit a similar offence while on bail; the order remained subject to verification of those antecedents.

The Court noted that the petitioners had undergone custody since 30 December 2025, the investigation had culminated in a charge-sheet, and the trial had not commenced despite 15 witnesses being cited, indicating that the proceedings would take additional time.

Although the alleged offence involved a commercial quantity and therefore attracted Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioners claimed that they had no criminal antecedents, and their counsel expressly undertook that the benefit of bail would not be claimed if any NDPS antecedent was found.

On the basis of the overall circumstances and that specific undertaking, the Court held that the petitioners could be treated as satisfying the Section 37 requirements, without expressing any opinion on the merits, while making release conditional upon antecedent verification.

The benefit of the order was expressly made conditional: it would not extend to any petitioner found to have a criminal antecedent involving an offence under the NDPS Act.

The connected BLAPLs were accordingly disposed of, and the order was directed to be communicated electronically to the concerned court and jail authorities.