NDPS Cases Must Be Tried Expeditiously, an Accused Cannot Be Left to Languish in Custody Indefinitely: AP High Court

Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling on March 11, 2025, granted regular bail to Namdeo Ashruba Nakade, who had been in judicial custody for over 16 months for allegedly transporting 731 kg of ganja. The Court, while acknowledging the seriousness of the charges under the NDPS Act, ruled that “prolonged incarceration without trial violates the fundamental right to a fair trial” and that the accused cannot be left in prison indefinitely due to judicial delays.

"Trial Court Must Ensure Speedy Disposal in NDPS Cases" – High Court Criticizes Slow Proceedings

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) had arrested Namdeo Ashruba Nakade on November 7, 2023, after his lorry was intercepted at Enikepadu Junction, Vijayawada, where authorities discovered 731 kg of ganja hidden in the vehicle’s trolley. A charge sheet was filed against him under Sections 8(c) read with 20, 28, and 29 of the NDPS Act before the II Additional District Judge-cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

Despite the charge sheet being filed on May 3, 2024, the trial court had not even framed charges as of March 2025, prompting the accused to file a renewed bail petition. His counsel argued that the trial was unlikely to begin soon due to a heavy backlog of cases and that the prolonged detention violated the accused’s fundamental rights.

Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Achint Navinbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 529, the High Court noted, “It has been repeatedly stressed that NDPS cases should be tried as early as possible because, in such cases, the accused are not normally granted bail.”

"Bail Cannot Be Denied Solely on the Ground That an Offence is Serious" – Court Rejects Prosecution’s Objections

The prosecution strongly opposed the bail, arguing that the accused was from Maharashtra and might abscond if released. The DRI submitted data showing multiple instances where accused in NDPS cases had jumped bail, leading to non-bailable warrants (NBWs) remaining pending for years. The prosecution further cited Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which places stringent conditions on granting bail for commercial quantities of narcotics.

Rejecting these arguments, the Court observed, “A serious charge alone is not enough to deny bail. The prosecution must demonstrate that the accused is likely to abscond or commit another offence. In the present case, the accused has no prior criminal record, and his continued detention is unjustified given the delay in trial.”

The Court also took note of the sworn affidavit filed by the accused’s elder brother, a serving Army officer, guaranteeing his presence in court. The brother even appeared online during the bail hearing to reaffirm his undertaking. The Court remarked, “The presence of a responsible family member assuring compliance with legal proceedings significantly reduces the risk of the accused absconding.”

"Justice Delayed is Justice Denied – Trial Courts Must Prioritize Cases Where Accused Are in Custody"

Emphasizing the constitutional right to a speedy trial, the Court relied on Jalaluddin Khan vs. Union of India (2024) 10 SCC 574, where the Supreme Court ruled that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception—even under special laws like the NDPS Act.” The High Court observed:

“The petitioner has already spent 16 months in custody without trial. The charge sheet was filed ten months ago, yet the trial court has not even framed charges. The likelihood of the trial commencing in the near future is minimal. Continued incarceration in such circumstances is unjustified.”

Referring to Ranjithsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra (2005) 5 SCC 294, the Court reiterated that “there is no mechanism to guarantee that an accused, once released on bail, will never commit an offence again. Bail decisions must be based on case-specific facts and not on broad assumptions.”

"Strict Conditions Imposed to Ensure Trial Participation" – Court Balances Rights of Accused with Law Enforcement Concerns

While granting bail, the High Court imposed strict conditions to ensure the accused’s presence during trial, stating:

“The petitioner must remain available for trial, deposit his passport with the court, and comply with electronic surveillance measures. If any condition is violated, authorities have the right to seek immediate cancellation of bail.”

The accused was directed to pair his mobile phone with that of the investigating officer for round-the-clock tracking and was required to inform the court of any change in address or phone number.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s ruling underscores the importance of expediting trials, especially under stringent laws like the NDPS Act. While recognizing the serious nature of drug offences, the Court reaffirmed that prolonged detention due to procedural delays cannot override an accused’s fundamental rights. The judgment serves as a reminder that judicial efficiency is essential to upholding the principles of justice.

Date of decision: 11/03/2025