Prolonged Incarceration Under NDPS Act Militates Against Article 21; Conditional Liberty Must Override Section 37 Embargo: Supreme Court

"The prolonged incarceration generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii), NDPS Act," Supreme Court, in a significant order, held that prolonged pre-trial incarceration of an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) violates the fundamental right to life and liberty.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed that when a trial is unlikely to conclude anytime soon, the conditional liberty of the individual must prevail over the stringent statutory bars for bail. The Court emphasized that detention without trial for an extended period amounts to a form of punishment without conviction.

The appellant, Manoj Dangi, was arrested on May 19, 2020, by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Lucknow, in connection with the recovery of commercial quantities of opium. It was alleged that the appellant had supplied 31 kg of opium to a co-accused and led to the recovery of another 60 kg hidden in a truck. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad had dismissed the appellant’s second bail application on February 4, 2026, leading to the present appeal before the Top Court.

The primary question before the Court was whether the appellant was entitled to bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration despite the gravity of the offenses. The Court was also called upon to determine if the statutory embargo on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act could be bypassed when the trial had failed to commence even after six years of custody.

Trial Not Commenced Despite Six Years Of Custody

The Supreme Court expressed deep concern over the fact that despite the appellant being in custody for six years, the trial against him was yet to begin. The bench noted that the prosecution intended to examine thirteen witnesses to prove the charges, suggesting that the trial would take a considerable amount of time to conclude. The Court observed that such a delay in the commencement of proceedings is "most unfortunate" and weighs heavily in favor of the accused seeking liberty.

Fundamental Right To Liberty Under Article 21

The Court placed heavy reliance on the precedent set in Rabi Prakash vs. State of Odisha (2023), which addressed the intersection of fundamental rights and statutory restrictions. It reiterated that the right to a speedy trial is an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The bench noted that prolonged incarceration is fundamentally at odds with the constitutional guarantee of liberty and must be addressed with judicial intervention.

Section 37 NDPS Act Embargo vs. Conditional Liberty

While acknowledging that the allegations against the appellant were serious in nature, the Court held that statutory restrictions like Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be used to justify indefinite detention. The judges observed that the "statutory embargo" created by the law must give way to the "conditional liberty" of the accused when the trial process is stagnant. The Court reasoned that keeping an individual in custody without the sight of a concluding trial is unwarranted.

"The prolonged incarceration generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

Conditions For Grant Of Bail And Trial Attendance

Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court directed the release of the appellant on bail subject to the satisfaction of the trial court. The bench imposed strict conditions, including a prohibition on the appellant from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. It further clarified that the trial court remains at liberty to cancel the bail if any conditions are breached or if the appellant fails to attend the trial proceedings diligently.

Clarification On Merits Of The Case

The Court explicitly clarified that its observations regarding the delay and the grant of bail should not be construed as a finding on the merits of the criminal case. It encouraged the trial court to expedite the proceedings once the recording of evidence begins. The bench emphasized that while the accused is granted liberty due to procedural delays, the prosecution's case must still be tested through a full trial.

The Supreme Court concluded that further detention of the appellant was not warranted given the "sort of punishment" already undergone through six years of pre-trial incarceration. By allowing the appeal, the Court reaffirmed that constitutional protections under Article 21 serve as a check against the prolonged operation of stringent bail provisions in special statutes.

Date of Decision: June 04, 2026