Article 21 Is Not a Dead Letter — Prolonged Incarceration Overrides NDPS Bail Bar: Delhi High Court Orders Release of Five Youths Accused in LSD Smuggling, Denies Bail to Two Based on Weight, Role and Evidence

Liberty of an individual cannot be sacrificed at the altar of procedural uncertainty — a statute cannot be interpreted to perpetuate injustice”  Justice Jasmeet Singh invokes constitutional primacy over stringent bail norms under NDPS Act 

In a landmark decision dated 22 April 2025, the Delhi High Court granted bail to five accused in a large-scale LSD smuggling case while refusing bail to two, emphasizing that continued incarceration without trial commencement for nearly two years violates Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court held that statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot override the fundamental right to personal liberty, especially where the trial has not commenced, charges not framed, and accused persons have no prior criminal antecedents.

“A blanket bar under Section 37 NDPS Act cannot become a tool for indefinite detention”

Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that custody of 1 year and 11 months to nearly 2 years, coupled with 35 witnesses and no charges framed, was sufficient ground to grant bail even under the stringent NDPS Act. He remarked:

“Simply charging an individual under special statutes like NDPS should not become a punishment in itself, infringing Article 21… Bail becomes imperative where there is no reasonable prospect of a swift trial.”

Citing Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (2023 SCC OnLine SC 352), the Court emphasized that when bail under Section 37 is weighed against the constitutional right to life and liberty, Article 21 must prevail in cases of prolonged incarceration.

“NDPS Act must be harmoniously construed with constitutional mandates — judicial conscience must prevail where delay subverts justice”

Justice Singh, referring to Ankur Chaudhary v. State of MP and Man Mandal v. State of West Bengal, reiterated:

“Failure to conclude trial within a reasonable time militates against the fundamental right to life… Conditional liberty may override statutory embargo.”

He held that the harsh bail conditions under Section 37(1)(b) must yield when trial is stagnant and accused are young, non-habitual offenders, and not flight risks.

“All are not similarly situated — bail granted based on individualized analysis of role, evidence and quantity”

The Court distinguished between the accused based on their role, digital evidence, and quantity of contraband linked to them. While petitioners Vaibhav Yadav, Arnav Dhankar, Pritesh Aggarwal, Nishant Rawat and Avtar Singh were granted bail due to lack of direct recovery from their person, disputed authorship of chats, and no clear financial trail, the same leniency was denied to Jithin Cherian and Yash Gupta.

In Jithin’s case, the Court remarked:

“A recovery of 500 LSD blots — more than 75 times the commercial threshold — along with WhatsApp chats, CDRs, and witness testimony indicate the petitioner was not a mere recipient but a handler and distributor… liberty must be balanced with public interest.”

For Yash Gupta, the Court held:

“Digital data extracted from the phone showed images of narcotics, delivery receipts, and multiple courier links bearing his name. A second parcel linked to him had also been delivered previously. His custodial period is insufficient to invoke Article 21 protection.”

“Procedural lapses under Sections 52A, 50A, and 57 NDPS do not ipso facto nullify prosecution — irregularities are trial issues, not grounds for automatic bail”

The petitioners raised substantial procedural objections — non-compliance with NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, delayed certification, and failure to perform controlled delivery under Section 50A. While acknowledging discrepancies, Justice Singh clarified:

“Controlled delivery is discretionary, not mandatory… Failure may affect the credibility of the prosecution’s case but does not vitiate the proceedings.”

On delayed sampling, the Court held that:

“Absence of Form-4 or certified inventory may be irregular, but these are matters for trial. They do not by themselves justify pre-trial release where incriminating material exists.”

“The threshold of 'commercial quantity' must be balanced with role and evidentiary strength — not all commercial quantity cases are alike”

Justice Singh distinguished between different degrees of culpability, ruling:

“While commercial quantity is a relevant factor, courts must evaluate the nature of involvement — is the accused a courier, a user, a minor conduit, or a syndicate operator? There can be no mechanical application of the NDPS bar.”

This nuance allowed bail to Avtar Singh, from whom only 2 LSD blots were recovered, and whose connection to parcel bookings was unsupported by credible KYC documentation.

“Digital evidence must be carefully evaluated — mere screenshots, usernames, or group chats without verification may not suffice”

In evaluating the digital evidence, especially in Arnav Dhankar’s case, the Court observed:

“The forensic extraction showed inconsistent phone numbers and screenshots posted in groups… such data, without authentication, cannot form the basis for continued custody.”

Similarly, the Court found that in several cases, statements under Section 67 NDPS were not corroborated by recovery or independent verification.

“Confession under Section 67 NDPS no longer conclusive — must be tested by corroborative material”

Justice Singh reiterated the law laid down in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1, holding:

“Section 67 statements are not admissible unless corroborated… bail cannot be denied solely based on unverified confessions.”

Court balances liberty with societal interest — bail granted to those with minimal recovery and delay in trial

Ultimately, the Court allowed bail to five petitioners observing:

“Article 21 cannot be suspended merely because NDPS Act applies… Law must be applied justly, not punitively.”

Each was released on ₹50,000 surety, barred from leaving India, and ordered to share phone and location details with the IO. However, for Jithin Cherian and Yash Gupta, whose cases were “factually distinguishable,” bail was declined, with the Court warning:

“Bail at this stage would undermine efforts to unearth larger conspiracies and identify principal operators.”

Date of Decision: 22 April 2025