Subsequent trial developments and prolonged custody justified second bail in an NDPS case.

The applicant was in judicial custody in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 8/22/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, concerning an alleged recovery during police checking

His first bail application had been dismissed on merits on 19 June 2025

In this second application, he relied on trial testimony and a discrepancy: documents said to have been prepared before the FIR was registered contained its number, while the State conceded that no corresponding General Diary entry was available to explain this

The applicant had been in custody since 17 May 2024, had no previous criminal history, and the trial had progressed but was not expected to conclude soon

1. Whether circumstances arising after rejection of the first bail application—including trial testimony and the unexplained presence of the FIR number in earlier documents—warranted reconsideration of bail

2. Whether the applicant should be released on bail having regard to the period of custody, antecedents, and progress of the trial

The Court considered the applicant’s second bail application under the NDPS Act, 1985, after his first application had been rejected on merits

It treated subsequent developments arising from evidence recorded at trial, together with the applicant’s custody, lack of previous criminal history, and trial progress, as relevant circumstances for determining whether bail was justified

No precedent was cited, and the Court did not determine the applicant’s separate allegations of non-compliance with Sections 42, 50, 52-A, or 57 of the Act.

The Court found that the trial evidence and the State’s concession regarding the absence of a General Diary entry were circumstances arising or coming on record after the first bail application was rejected

Considering these developments alongside the applicant’s custody since 17 May 2024, clean antecedents, and substantial progress in the trial, the Court concluded that a case for bail had been made out, without expressing an opinion on the merits

Bail was subject to conditions, including not leaving the country without permission, cooperating with the investigation, not tampering with evidence or witnesses or engaging in criminal activity, and surrendering any passport; bail could be cancelled for breach or misuse of liberty.