The Tripura High Court has stated that the commonly applied legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty" and the tendency to grant bail rather than keeping individuals in custody may not apply to individuals accused in cases involving the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Justice Arindham Lodh noted in cases related to the NDPS Act that the stringent provisions of the law make the granting of bail an uncommon occurrence rather than the standard practice.

The Supreme Court has emphasized on multiple occasions that the general principle should be to grant bail as a standard practice, with imprisonment being reserved for exceptional cases to avoid unnecessary arrests. This principle was initially established by the Supreme Court in the landmark judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand alias Baliay in 1978. Former judge V.R. Krishna Iyer had articulated this principle as, "The fundamental rule can be succinctly summarized as 'bail, not jail'."

Justice Lodh emphasized that in cases involving the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), imprisonment is typically the standard practice. He stated that it is firmly established that bail is not commonly granted but is rather an exceptional occurrence in such cases.

He also expressed disapproval of lower courts granting bail to accused individuals in NDPS cases too frequently and without due consideration. He emphasized that procedural violations or irregularities should not be taken into account when determining bail requests for those accused in NDPS and UAPA cases.

According to Justice Lodh, providing bail in NDPS cases based on procedural issues is a breach of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which sets out restrictions on bail. He emphasized that procedural violations should only be addressed during the trial phase and not when considering bail applications.

These remarks by the court were delivered in the context of a hearing related to the Tripura government's request to revoke the bail granted to three individuals accused in an NDPS case. The government argued that the bail given to these individuals went against the provisions of the NDPS Act. Furthermore, the government accused the individuals of being habitual offenders involved in the illegal drug trade.

The high court stated that the learned Special Judge failed to take into account the two conditions outlined in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Instead, the judge granted bail to the accused individuals based on the mistaken belief that because there were procedural violations or irregularities, the accused individuals were entitled to bail.

In its decision to accept the appeal from the state government, the high court pointed out that the trial court had made a significant error by misinterpreting and misapplying the provisions of the NDPS Act when it granted bail to the accused individuals. As a result, the court ordered two of the accused, who were previously granted bail, to surrender, while the third accused remains in jail due to their involvement in another case.