Mandatory NDPS twin conditions govern bail in commercial quantity cases, while HIV-positive accused get priority trial expeditiously.

Bail in a prosecution for commercial quantity narcotic drugs requires mandatory satisfaction of the NDPS twin conditions: reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. That statutory rigour cannot be bypassed on humanitarian considerations such as prior grant of bail on a different basis, so the bail order was set aside and custody restored in accordance with law. At the same time, where the accused is HIV positive, the criminal trial must be taken up and disposed of on a priority basis, and the trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether bail could be sustained in a prosecution involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs without recording satisfaction of the twin conditions under the NDPS Act. (ii) Whether the trial should be expedited on priority in view of the accused being HIV positive.

Issue (i): Whether bail could be sustained in a prosecution involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs without recording satisfaction of the twin conditions under the NDPS Act.

Analysis: The statutory scheme governing bail in cases involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs requires the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. These conditions are cumulative and mandatory. A liberal approach that ignores this mandate is impermissible, and the requirement of recording the statutory satisfaction cannot be bypassed merely because bail was earlier granted on a different consideration. On the facts, the impugned bail order was passed on the ground of HIV positivity without addressing the statutory rigour applicable to the alleged offences involving heroin in commercial quantity.

Conclusion: The bail order could not be sustained and was liable to be set aside; the finding is against the accused and in favour of the State.

Issue (ii): Whether the trial should be expedited on priority in view of the accused being HIV positive.

Analysis: The HIV legislation mandates that legal proceedings concerning an HIV-positive person be taken up and disposed of on a priority basis. That statutory protection does not dilute the bail restrictions under the NDPS Act, but it does require the criminal trial to proceed expeditiously once the accused is before the trial court.

Conclusion: The trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings on a priority basis.

Final Conclusion: The impugned bail order was set aside, custody was directed to be restored in accordance with law, and the trial court was required to proceed with the case on priority.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, bail can be granted only upon satisfaction of the mandatory twin conditions under Section 37, and such statutory rigour cannot be overridden by a humanitarian ground unless the Act itself permits it.

---