Section 37 NDPS Act | Two-Year Incarceration Without Trial Commencement & Implication Solely On Co-Accused Statements Warrant Bail: Supreme Court

Supreme Court held that an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is entitled to regular bail where he has undergone nearly two years of pre-trial incarceration, the charge-sheet cites dozens of witnesses with the trial yet to commence, and his implication is founded on disclosure statements of co-accused requiring examination at trial.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi observed that prolonged incarceration cannot be justified under such circumstances, particularly when compounded by the critical medical condition of the accused.

The appellant was arrested on October 23, 2024, in connection with Crime No. 441 of 2024 registered at K8 Arumbakkam Police Station, Chennai, after an alleged seizure of one kilogram of methamphetamine based on statements of previously arrested co-accused. Following completion of investigation, a final report was filed in C.C. No. 643 of 2025 before the II Additional Special Court for NDPS Cases, Chennai, implicating twenty accused persons under Sections 8(c), 22(b), 29(1), 25, and 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act. The Madras High Court, vide impugned order dated February 26, 2026, dismissed his third bail application citing the commercial quantity involved and the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, prompting this appeal before the top court.

The primary question before the court was whether the appellant was entitled to be enlarged on regular bail under the NDPS Act in view of his custody of nearly two years, the pendency of trial with 46 prosecution witnesses, and his cardiac ailment requiring bypass surgery, notwithstanding the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Prolonged Pre-Trial Custody And Trial Delay Defeat Need For Incarceration

The Supreme Court noted that the appellant had been detained behind bars since October 23, 2024, undergoing detention for nearly two years without the trial having commenced. The bench highlighted that the prosecution had cited 46 witnesses in the charge-sheet, demonstrating that the trial would inevitably consume substantial time once it began.

The bench observed that the delay in the commencement of the trial, pitted against the significant custody already suffered by the accused, weighed heavily in favour of granting bail.

Evidentiary Value Of Co-Accused Statements Must Be Tested At Trial

Addressing the prosecution's premise that the appellant was implicated on the basis of confessions made by co-accused persons, the court emphasized that the evidentiary value of such disclosures remains a subject for trial. The bench observed that the appellant having been arrested on the basis of statements made by the co-accused, the admissibility and evidentiary value of those statements are matters to be examined by the trial court upon appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties.

The court noted that because the appellant's direct complicity hinged substantially on disclosure statements whose veracity had yet to be established through formal evidence, continued detention pending trial was unreasonable.

Medical Condition And Post-Operative Requirements Persuade Grant Of Relief

The bench also took into consideration the appellant's documented medical history, which revealed that he had suffered a cardiac event on April 4, 2025, during his incarceration and was advised to undergo Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG). The judges observed that the medical records and the appellant's urgent need for specialised treatment and post-operative care served as strong persuasive factors warranting his enlargement on bail.

The court underscored that prolonged custody must not endanger the fundamental well-being of an undertrial prisoner requiring specialized medical intervention.

Merits And Compliance With Statutory NDPS Safeguards Left Open For Trial

The bench explicitly clarified that it was not pronouncing any final finding on the merits of the allegations, leaving all contentions open for adjudication during the trial. The court noted that it had refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits, stating that all questions concerning the appellant’s alleged involvement, the reliability of the prosecution evidence, and compliance with statutory safeguards, including the alleged delay of 34 days in producing seized contraband before the Magistrate, are left open for determination by the trial court in accordance with law.

Setting aside the impugned order of the Madras High Court, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed that the appellant be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the jurisdictional trial court.

The Supreme Court reiterated that where an accused has suffered nearly two years of custody in an NDPS case based primarily on co-accused statements, and the trial is delayed with dozens of witnesses remaining to be examined, continued pre-trial incarceration is unwarranted. The ruling reaffirms that protracted delays in trial, coupled with serious medical grounds, remain valid considerations for enlarging an accused on regular bail.

Date of Decision: October 09, 2026