Prolonged Incarceration of 641 Days Not Sufficient to Override Statutory Bar Under Section 37 NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"Right to Speedy Trial is Fundamental, But Cannot Trump Express Legislative Mandate of Section 37 in Commercial Quantity Drug Offences" - Andhra Pradesh High Court, speaking through Hon’ble Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao, delivered a significant ruling in Criminal Petition. The petitioners, arrested for possession of over 203 kilograms of ganja — a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, 1985 — sought bail under Sections 437 and 439 of the CrPC and the corresponding provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

Dismissing the bail plea, the Court held:
"In cases involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, mere passage of time in custody, unless extremely prolonged and unjustified, does not dilute the rigours of Section 37".

On 12 October 2023, based on specific intelligence, officials from the Customs Preventive Commissionerate, Vijayawada intercepted a silver Volkswagen Vento vehicle near St. John's High School, Gannavaram. Upon searching the car, authorities found 99 bags of ganja, totaling 203.306 kg, inside the vehicle. The accused, Ramesh Nath and Rakesh Nath, allegedly admitted they procured the contraband at Jaggampeta and were headed to Hyderabad under the direction of one Raju Ram Chowdary @ Raju Bhai.

After completing the necessary formalities, the officials arrested the accused and presented them before a competent court, which remanded them to judicial custody. The petitioners have since remained incarcerated for 641 days, prompting the present bail application.

The petitioners invoked their fundamental right under Article 21, claiming that continued incarceration amounted to a denial of the right to a speedy trial. Counsel submitted that both petitioners were innocent, falsely implicated, and sole breadwinners for their families. It was also argued that the prolonged judicial custody should entitle them to conditional liberty.

However, the Court was unequivocal in its approach, holding that the case squarely fell within the purview of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, which lays down twin mandatory conditions for granting bail in commercial quantity cases. The Court observed:

"There has been consistent and persistent judicial recognition that Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not merely procedural — it is substantive, mandatory, and non-derogable. Unless both conditions — a belief that the accused is not guilty and a belief that the accused is not likely to commit another offence — are cumulatively satisfied, bail cannot be granted."

Relying on the ruling in State of Kerala v. Rajesh [(2020) 12 SCC 122], the Court reiterated:

“The bar on bail in Section 37 is triggered unless both conditions are met. They are cumulative, not alternative. The Court cannot ignore this legislative mandate.”

Distinction From Cited Precedents:

The petitioners relied on a series of judgments, including:

• Narcotic Control Bureau v. Lakhwinder Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine 366

• Ankur Chaudhary v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2730

• Kulwinder v. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 94

These cases involved bail being granted due to prolonged incarceration and delayed trials, wherein the accused had been in custody for 2.5 to 4.5 years. But the Court was quick to distinguish them.

"In all these cases, the accused had undergone incarceration for periods significantly longer than the 641 days in the present matter. Thus, the precedents are factually distinguishable and offer no assistance to the petitioners at this juncture."

The Court emphasized that “mere passage of time in custody does not by itself erode the statutory bar imposed under Section 37", unless the delay is both substantial and unexplained, and results in a clear breach of Article 21.

Reinforcing Legislative Intent and Public Interest:

In support of its view, the Court referred to numerous Supreme Court judgments reiterating the statutory sanctity of Section 37, including:

• Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal [(2022) 18 SCC 374]

• Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari [(2007) 7 SCC 798]

• State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1751

These judgments collectively affirm that courts must adopt a strict approach in NDPS cases, particularly where commercial quantity is involved.

"Prolonged incarceration, though a serious concern under Article 21, cannot be used as a backdoor to bypass the statutory safeguards crafted under the NDPS Act, which was enacted to serve a vital public purpose — the containment of the drug menace."

The Court underscored that the object of the NDPS Act is to implement stringent mechanisms to combat drug trafficking and that courts must not become facilitators of judicial leniency in such cases without statutory backing.

After considering the arguments, precedents, and the statutory scheme, the Court refused to grant bail, holding:

"At this point of time, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of bail. There are no merits in the petition at present.”

However, recognizing the importance of expeditious trials, the Court issued a strong directive to the Trial Court:

“The learned XII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Cases under NDPS Act, Vijayawada is directed to complete the trial within a period of six months and dispose of the same in accordance with law.”

This ruling serves as a reiteration of the judiciary’s cautious and restrained approach to granting bail in NDPS commercial quantity cases. The Court’s decision reinforces the principle that Article 21 rights must be balanced with statutory mandates, particularly when dealing with special legislation like the NDPS Act, which is rooted in public interest and national concern.

Date of Decision: 12 August 2025