Woman Accused In 1.6-Kg Heroin Case Gets Bail After 16 Months; No Prosecution Witnesses Examined, P&H HC Notes

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an FIR alleging recovery of 1 kg 613 grams of heroin, ₹5,28,550 said to be drug proceeds, and two illegal firearms.

The FIR invoked Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act; Section 27-A of the NDPS Act was added subsequently.

Arrested on 3 July 2025, the petitioner had been in custody for 1 year, 4 months and 2 days by the date of the custody certificate.

The challan was filed on 24 December 2025, but none of the 34 prosecution witnesses had been examined.

This was her second bail petition; the first was dismissed as withdrawn on 9 April 2026.

The petitioner also relied on her status as a 35-year-old woman, alleged non-compliance with mandatory NDPS provisions, and delay in trial.

Section 483 of the BNSS empowers the High Court to grant regular bail; the proviso to Section 480(1) of the BNSS, treated by the Court as pari materia with the proviso to Section 437 of the CrPC, requires a court considering bail to take account of an accused’s status as a woman, while not making that factor determinative in every case.

Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantities.

The Court also applied the constitutional principle that Article 21 protects the right to a speedy trial and that prolonged, unjustified pre-trial detention may warrant bail notwithstanding statutory restrictions.

It relied on Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI for the purposive consideration of the women’s-bail proviso; Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana for the rule that a successive bail petition requires a substantial change in circumstances and, if allowed, cogent reasons; and Kulwinder v. State of Punjab and Sri Sujit Das v. Union of India for the relationship between Article 21, delay in trial, and Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The Court considered the serious allegations and Section 37’s restrictions but found that the petitioner had undergone more than 16 months’ custody while none of the 34 prosecution witnesses had been examined.

It also noted that she was a woman, was not reported to be involved in any other FIR, and that nothing tangible suggested she would abscond or interfere with the evidence.

Although this was a successive petition, the Court treated the extended incarceration and absence of substantial trial progress as relevant changed circumstances supporting reconsideration.

In those circumstances, it concluded that further detention as an undertrial was unwarranted and that the Article 21 considerations justified bail notwithstanding Section 37.

Bail was subject to specified conditions, including regular attendance, no tampering with evidence or commission of further offences, surrender of any passport, providing and maintaining a cellphone number, not delaying trial, and filing a monthly affidavit concerning any subsequent offence.

The Court clarified that its observations did not express an opinion on the merits of the case.