NDPS bail despite Section 37: prolonged undertrial custody, Section 67 limits, and foreign nationality did not bar relief.

In NDPS prosecutions involving commercial quantity, prolonged pre-trial incarceration can justify bail despite Section 37 where the accused is not shown to have caused the delay and the trial is unlikely to finish soon. The court treated about eight years of custody as a decisive factor and held that Section 37 is not an absolute bar in such circumstances. It further held that sampling objections to the alleged recovery were not suitable for determination at the bail stage and had to be tested at trial, while statements recorded under Section 67 could not be relied on as substantive evidence for bail purposes. Foreign nationality was also held not to be a standalone ground to refuse bail.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether prolonged incarceration of an undertrial accused facing an NDPS prosecution involving commercial quantity can justify bail despite Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; (ii) whether the alleged recovery could be challenged at the bail stage on the basis of sampling objections and statements recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; (iii) whether the applicant's foreign nationality disentitled him to bail.

Issue (i): Whether prolonged incarceration of an undertrial accused facing an NDPS prosecution involving commercial quantity can justify bail despite Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Analysis: The applicant had remained in custody for about eight years, while a substantial part of the trial was still pending. The case involved commercial quantity heroin, so the restrictions under Section 37 applied. The Court relied on the principle that prolonged delay in trial, especially where the accused is not shown to have contributed to the delay, can justify release on bail in NDPS matters. It applied the line of authority recognising that Section 37 does not create an absolute bar where incarceration has become unduly prolonged and the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the applicant, and prolonged incarceration was held to be a valid ground for bail notwithstanding Section 37.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged recovery could be challenged at the bail stage on the basis of sampling objections and statements recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Analysis: The Court held that the legality of the sampling procedure was not fit for adjudication at the bail stage and had to be examined at trial. However, it accepted that statements recorded under Section 67 could not be treated as substantive evidence in view of the governing law on confessional statements under the NDPS regime. That consideration weakened the prosecution case for bail purposes, even though the recovery issue itself was left for trial.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the applicant to the extent that Section 67 statements could not be relied upon as evidence at the bail stage, while the sampling objection was left open for trial.

Issue (iii): Whether the applicant's foreign nationality disentitled him to bail.

Analysis: The Court rejected the argument that foreign nationality by itself created a separate disqualification. It noted that the applicant had family roots in India and that the Supreme Court and coordinate benches had granted bail in similar situations, including to foreign nationals, subject to suitable conditions. The Court treated the applicant's nationality as a relevant factor for safeguards, not as a bar to bail.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the applicant, and foreign nationality was held not to be a ground to refuse bail in the facts of the case.

Final Conclusion: Bail was granted in an NDPS case involving commercial quantity, because the applicant had undergone prolonged pre-trial incarceration, the trial was far from complete, and no disqualifying factor was found to override the bail principles applied by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: In NDPS prosecutions involving commercial quantity, prolonged undertrial incarceration without attributable delay by the accused can warrant bail despite Section 37, and foreign nationality or Section 67 confessions do not by themselves defeat such relief.

---