Despite stringent provisions under Section 37 of NDPS Act, bail granted owing to prolonged incarceration, delay in trial commencement, and absence of independent witnesses
In a significant ruling on October 7, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Amit Bansal, granted regular bail to Sunny, an accused in a narcotics case involving the recovery of 259.3 grams of morphine-marginally exceeding the commercial quantity threshold of 250 grams under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
Sunny was arrested on July 6, 2025, during regular police patrolling by the Crime Branch of South-East Delhi, following the seizure of the contraband morphine. The prosecution had filed a charge sheet and framed charges under Sections 8 and 21 of the NDPS Act. However, the trial had not commenced even after more than a year of incarceration.
The Court's decision to grant bail comes against the backdrop of the strict bail provisions mandated by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which ordinarily makes bail difficult to obtain in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics. The Court, however, took a nuanced view, relying heavily on the prolonged delay in trial proceedings and the applicant's satisfactory conduct in jail.
Notably, the Court also observed that the prosecution failed to comply with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which requires the presence of an independent public witness during search and seizure. The absence of such independent witnesses was held to be a strong factor favoring bail.
The Court further noted that the applicant had no prior involvement in any other NDPS cases, reducing concerns about potential reoffending. Though the co-accused Lalit, from whom a smaller quantity of morphine was recovered, had already been granted bail, the Court emphasized that the bail to Sunny was granted independently based on the totality of circumstances including the marginal excess in quantity, delay in trial, and the applicant's custodial period.
The Court referred to recent precedents from the Supreme Court, including Badsha SK v. State of West Bengal, Man Mandal v. State of West Bengal, and Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P., which acknowledged that prolonged incarceration without commencement of trial adversely impacts the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. These rulings supported the principle that stringent bail conditions under Section 37 do not bar bail if trial delays are unjustified.
Accordingly, the Court ordered Sunny's release on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of the same amount. Conditions imposed include maintaining contact details with the investigating officer, appearing before the trial court as required, restrictions on leaving the country without permission, and prohibition on tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's balanced approach in NDPS cases, where the rights of the accused and the need for timely trials are weighed against the stringent statutory provisions aimed at combating drug offenses.
Bottom Line:
NDPS Act - Regular bail - Recovery of 259 grams morphine, marginally above commercial quantity of 250 grams - Despite rigours of Section 37, bail granted considering prolonged incarceration, non-commencement of trial, completion of investigation, satisfactory jail conduct, absence of other NDPS antecedents and prima facie issue regarding absence of independent witnesses.
Statutory provision(s):
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Sections 8, 21, 37, 50; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Sections 483, 528
Sunny v. State of NCT of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2996429
