NDPS bail and Section 37 constraints may yield where prolonged custody and trial delay raise Article 21 concerns.

In NDPS cases involving commercial quantity, bail remains subject to Section 37's twin conditions, but prolonged incarceration and inordinate trial delay may still justify release where Article 21 concerns arise. Sampling objections were treated as matters for trial-level scrutiny, with no prima facie prejudice shown at the bail stage. The absence of independent witnesses at a crowded recovery spot, and the lack of shown notice under Section 100(8) CrPC, were also relevant to bail consideration. On the combined facts, the Court granted bail, finding that continued custody had become unduly prolonged and that the accused was not likely to commit an offence while on bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether regular bail should be granted in an NDPS case involving commercial quantity, despite the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, on the grounds of alleged sampling irregularity, absence of independent witnesses, and prolonged delay in trial.

Analysis: The application was considered in the context of the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which require reasonable grounds to believe that the is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The challenge to sampling was treated as a matter requiring trial-level examination, and the Court found no prima facie prejudice established at the stage of bail. On the question of witnesses and recovery, the Court noted that the place of recovery was crowded, yet no independent witness was joined and no notice under Section 100(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was shown to have been issued. The Court also relied on the prolonged custody of the applicant since 25.12.2021, the absence of examination of witnesses, and the unlikelihood of early completion of trial. It held that undue delay in trial can justify bail even in NDPS matters, as prolonged incarceration implicates the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: Bail was granted, as the Court found a prima facie case for release on the combined grounds of absence of independent witnesses and prolonged delay in trial, and was satisfied that the applicant was not likely to commit an offence while on bail.

Final Conclusion: The statutory rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act was held not to bar bail where continued custody had become unduly prolonged and the circumstances raised sufficient doubt for bail-stage consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: In NDPS cases involving commercial quantity, the embargo under Section 37 does not preclude grant of bail where prolonged incarceration and trial delay outweigh the statutory restriction and the Court is satisfied, at least prima facie, that bail is warranted.

---