The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted bail to a convict under the NDPS Act after he served over half of his two-year sentence, emphasizing that prolonged incarceration pending appeal warrants interim relief where no prejudice to investigation is shown. The order also condones a two-day delay in filing the appeal, reinforcing procedural fairness in criminal justice.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Rakesh Ahirwar, was convicted by the Special Judge, NDPS Act, District Narmadapuram, Madhya Pradesh, on 11.10.2025 under Sections 8(c) and 20(B)(ii)(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He was sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000, with a default stipulation. The conviction arose from an alleged offence involving possession of a narcotic substance.
Key Facts
- The appellant was arrested and remained in custody during trial.
- As per the custody certificate under Section 428 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly CrPC), he spent 6 months and 19 days in custody during trial.
- From the date of judgment, 11.10.2025, he remained continuously in custody.
- By the date of the bail order (01.07.2026), he had served a total of 15 months and 21 days in custody.
- The appellant has no prior criminal antecedents.
- The appeal against conviction was filed on 29.06.2026, two days after the statutory limitation period of 30 days under Section 374 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Procedural History
- Date of Offence: Not specified in judgment
- Date of Arrest: Not specified in judgment
- 11.10.2025: Conviction and sentencing by Special Judge, NDPS Act, District Narmadapuram
- 27.06.2026: Deadline for filing appeal under Section 374 of BNS 2023
- 29.06.2026: Criminal Appeal No. 12302 of 2025 filed - two days late
- 01.07.2026: Hearing before Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur
- 01.07.2026: I.A. No. 359/2026 (condonation of delay) and I.A. No. 358/2026 (suspension of sentence and bail) heard and decided
Relief Sought
The appellant sought:
- Condonation of delay of two days in filing the appeal
- Suspension of the remaining sentence
- Grant of bail pending disposal of the appeal
- Conditions to be imposed including personal bond and surety
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether a delay of two days in filing a criminal appeal under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, warrants condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; and (2) Whether a convict who has served more than half of his sentence is entitled to suspension of the remaining sentence and bail pending appeal, absent any risk of tampering or flight.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Learned counsel submitted that the appellant had served 15 months and 21 days in custody - exceeding half of the two-year sentence. He emphasized the appellant’s clean record, the substantial time already served, and the likelihood of prolonged pendency of the appeal due to backlog. He argued that the prosecution case suffered from material contradictions and omissions in witness testimonies, raising a prima facie case on merit. He further stated the appellant was ready to comply with all bail conditions, including personal bond and surety, and would appear before the trial court as directed.
For the Respondent
The State opposed the bail prayer, arguing that offences under the NDPS Act are grave and attract stringent treatment. It contended that granting bail in such cases undermines deterrence and public policy. No specific counter-arguments were raised regarding the delay in filing the appeal.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the application under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 389(1) CrPC), which permits suspension of sentence pending appeal. The Court noted that while gravity of the offence is a relevant consideration, it is not decisive. The Court observed:
"The appellant has already undergone more than half of the sentence awarded. The delay in filing the appeal is minimal and unexplained but not malicious. The appellant has no criminal antecedents and has remained in custody throughout. There is no suggestion of risk of tampering with evidence or absconding."
The Court further held that the purpose of Section 430 is to prevent undue hardship to an accused whose appeal has a prima facie merit and who has already suffered substantial incarceration. The Court declined to express any opinion on the merits of the appeal but found sufficient grounds for interim relief. Regarding the delay, the Court relied on the principle that Section 5 of the Limitation Act allows condonation for sufficient cause, and a delay of two days, especially in a criminal matter where liberty is at stake, is de minimis and justifiably condonable.
The Verdict
The appellant succeeded on both applications. The Court:
- Allowed I.A. No. 359/2026 and condoned the two-day delay in filing the appeal
- Allowed I.A. No. 358/2026 and suspended the remaining sentence
- Directed the appellant to deposit the fine of Rs. 3,000 if not already paid
- Required him to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with a solvent surety of like amount, to be approved by the trial court
- Ordered his release on bail
- Directed him to appear before the trial court on 02.11.2026 and on all subsequent dates until final disposal of the appeal
- Directed the case to be listed for final hearing in due course
What This Means For Similar Cases
Suspension of Sentence Is Not Dependent on Merits Alone
- Practitioners may now argue that serving over 50% of a sentence, combined with a clean record and no risk of flight, justifies bail under Section 430 BNS even without a conclusive finding on appeal merits
- Courts must weigh incarceration duration as a standalone factor under Section 430, not merely as a procedural afterthought
Minimal Delays in Filing Appeals Are Condonable
- A delay of two days in filing a criminal appeal under BNS 2023 is de minimis and qualifies as sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
- Courts should adopt a liberal approach to condonation in cases involving personal liberty, especially where no prejudice to prosecution is shown
Bail Conditions Must Be Practical and Proportionate
- The requirement of a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with a solvent surety is a reasonable middle ground - not punitive, but ensuring accountability
- Practitioners should draft bail applications specifying exact conditions proposed, as courts are more likely to grant relief when terms are clearly articulated
