The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to an accused in a case involving the NDPS Act and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS), holding that the contraband recovered was below commercial quantity and the trial would likely be unduly prolonged. The court emphasized that prolonged judicial custody without trial, absent exceptional circumstances, warrants bail under the principles of personal liberty under Article 21.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur granted bail to the accused in a case involving Sections 8 and 15 of the NDPS Act and multiple provisions of the BNS. The core legal holding is that bail may be granted in drug cases where the contraband recovered is below commercial quantity and the trial is likely to be unduly prolonged, even when serious charges are involved. The court directed the accused to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each, subject to appearance before the trial court.
Background & Facts
The petitioner, Shyam alias Shyam Sundra, was arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 64/2025 registered at Police Station Dantor, District Bikaner. The case involved allegations under Sections 109(1), 132, 326(f), and 238(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, and Sections 8 and 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The charges stemmed from the recovery of contraband substances during a police operation.
The petitioner has been in judicial custody since his arrest. The investigating agency has already filed the charge sheet before the competent criminal court. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the quantity of narcotics recovered was below the threshold defined as commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, which significantly reduces the gravity of the offence. Further, it was submitted that criminal trials in such matters often extend over years, resulting in prolonged pre-trial detention.
The prosecution opposed the bail application, citing the seriousness of the charges under the NDPS Act and the BNS. However, no specific allegations of violence, flight risk, or tampering with evidence were advanced to justify denial of bail.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether bail can be granted in a case under the NDPS Act and BNS where the contraband recovered is below commercial quantity and the trial is likely to be unduly prolonged, despite the presence of serious non-bailable offences.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the quantity of contraband recovered was below the commercial quantity threshold under Section 2 of the NDPS Act, which is a critical factor in determining the severity of punishment. The counsel relied on Supreme Court precedents holding that bail should be the rule and jail the exception, particularly where the accused is in custody for an extended period without trial. It was further submitted that the charge sheet had already been filed, indicating that the investigation was complete and there was no risk of evidence tampering. The petitioner’s prolonged detention without a speedy trial, the counsel argued, violated Article 21 of the Constitution.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor opposed bail on the grounds that the offences under Sections 8 and 15 of the NDPS Act are non-bailable and carry severe penalties. The prosecution emphasized the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the potential for the accused to abscond or influence witnesses. No specific evidence of risk was adduced, but the argument rested on the nature of the offences alone.
The Court's Analysis
The court declined to express any opinion on the merits of the case, as is customary in bail proceedings. Instead, it focused on the procedural posture and the duration of custody. The court noted that the petitioner had been in judicial custody since arrest and that the trial, given the backlog in subordinate courts, would likely take a considerable time to conclude. The court observed that the quantity of contraband recovered was below the commercial quantity threshold, which under established jurisprudence reduces the presumption of dangerousness associated with NDPS cases.
"The principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception finds particular resonance in cases where the accused is in custody for an extended period and the quantity of contraband is below commercial limits."
The court distinguished this case from those involving large-scale trafficking or violent conduct, noting that the absence of allegations of weapon use, intimidation, or flight risk further supported the grant of bail. The court also acknowledged that the charge sheet had been filed, indicating that the investigation was complete and the evidence was on record. The court held that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 cannot be rendered illusory by indefinite pre-trial detention, especially where the gravity of the offence is mitigated by the quantity involved.
The court imposed reasonable conditions, including a personal bond and sureties, to ensure the petitioner’s appearance before the trial court. These conditions were designed to balance the petitioner’s liberty with the interests of justice.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment reinforces the principle that bail is not automatically denied in NDPS cases merely because the offence is non-bailable. Practitioners should now more confidently argue for bail in cases where the contraband quantity is below commercial limits, particularly when the trial is likely to be delayed. The ruling provides a clear roadmap: establish the quantity threshold, demonstrate prolonged custody, and show that the investigation is complete.
The decision does not overrule Section 37 of the NDPS Act but clarifies its application. Courts must now conduct a more nuanced assessment - balancing statutory presumptions against constitutional rights to liberty and speedy trial. This precedent will be particularly useful in districts with heavy case backlogs. However, the ruling is limited to cases where no other aggravating factors such as prior convictions, weapon possession, or organized crime links are present. Future applications must clearly distinguish between mere possession for personal use and trafficking.
