The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of safeguarding personal liberty, and granting bail to an individual accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Court, comprising a division bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta, held that in cases of prolonged incarceration, the principle of conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo outlined in Section 37 of the Act. The Court based its decision on the fundamental right to life and personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The bail application under consideration pertained to a man who had been one of the occupants of a truck where a substantial quantity of Ganja, weighing 247 kg, was recovered. Notably, the individual had already spent over three and a half years in custody, with the trial expected to extend further. While applying the twin conditions for bail as prescribed in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court acknowledged the petitioner's extended detention and the potential violation of his fundamental rights.

Nevertheless, due to the petitioner's non-residential status in the state of Orissa, where he had been arrested, the Court imposed the condition that he could secure release on bail by providing two local sureties before the Trial Court. Advocate Shyam Manohar Mishra represented the petitioner in the case.

This ruling aligns with the Supreme Court's recent observation in the case of Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023, where it highlighted the impracticality of a strict interpretation of the rigorous conditions imposed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Such an interpretation would effectively render bail unattainable, leading to punitive and unsanctioned preventive detention.

Section 37 of the NDPS Act allows the Court to grant bail to an accused only if there are reasonable grounds to believe in their innocence and the likelihood of refraining from future offenses upon release.

The Court's interpretation of Section 37 seeks to prevent the complete denial of bail to individuals accused of offenses falling under the NDPS Act. The constitutional parameters require the court to examine the prima facie material on record during the bail application and ascertain the accused's potential non-guilt. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that undue trial delays could be considered grounds for granting bail despite the stringent provisions of Section 37.

Overall, this decision by the Supreme Court is poised to have a significant impact on the interpretation and application of the NDPS Act, ensuring that prolonged incarceration does not infringe upon an individual's right to liberty.

Case Title: Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).4169/2023), 

Click here to read/download order