Section 479 BNSS preserves judicial discretion to deny bail despite completion of one-third maximum sentence.

The Petitioner was arrested on August 06, 2018, following the interception of a truck where 52.523 kg of Heroin was recovered from a false cavity.

Charges were framed on May 03, 2019, under Sections 8, 21, 29, and 60 of the NDPS Act.

After being in custody for over seven years and with 10 out of 13 witnesses examined, the Petitioner sought bail from the High Court.

He argued for enlargement primarily under the first proviso to Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), claiming he had served one-third of the maximum sentence as a first-time offender.

The Respondent opposed the plea, citing the Petitioner's prior involvement in a Section 8/15 NDPS case and the gravity of the current offense.

1. Whether the mandatory rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be overlooked due to prolonged incarceration and the stage of the trial.

2. Whether the first proviso of Section 479 BNSS creates an absolute/indefeasible right to bail for an under-trial who has completed one-third of the maximum sentence, or if it remains subject to judicial discretion under the second proviso.

The Court applied Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which mandates a "negative find" of innocence for bail in commercial quantity cases.

It relied on *Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif* (2025) and *Union of India v. Vigin K. Varghese* (2025) to establish that Section 37 takes precedence over pleas of prolonged incarceration.

Furthermore, the Court interpreted Section 479 of the BNSS, utilizing the principle of harmonious construction from *S. Sundaram Pillai v. V. R. Pattabiraman* (1985) to define the relationship between the first and second provisos regarding under-trial detention limits.

The Court reasoned that Section 37 of the NDPS Act remains the mandatory "sine qua non" for bail, and the Petitioner failed to produce evidence rebutting the presumption of guilt or showing the prosecution's evidence was fragile.

Regarding Section 479 BNSS, the Court held that the two provisos must be read conjointly; while the first proviso sets a threshold for eligibility, the second proviso preserves the Court's discretion to continue detention for recorded reasons.

The Court noted that an "automatic release" interpretation would lead to absurdity in grave offenses and nullify judicial oversight.

Given the massive quantity of contraband (market value ₹250 crores), the Petitioner’s criminal antecedent (prior NDPS case), and the fact that the trial was near completion with only three witnesses remaining, the Court found no justification for exercising discretion in favor of bail.

However, considering the length of incarceration, the Court directed the Trial Court to examine the remaining witnesses in one calendar and conclude the trial within two months.