Bail Granted in NDPS Case: Supreme Court Cites Lesser Quantity and Prolonged Custody.


30 October 2025 Bail and Antcipatory Bail >> Criminal Law   |   Drugs >> Criminal Law  

In an order passed while reiterating the proportionality principle in the discharge of bail rights concerning the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Supreme Court of India granted bail to one Razmudin Miyan alias Rajmudin Alam on October 30, 2025. The latter had been in custody for more than seven months.

A Bench led by Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe pronounced the order on an appeal filed against an order dated June 18, 2025, passed by the Patna High Court which denied bail to the appellant in connection with FIR No. 46 of 2025 registered at Mainatand Police Station in Bettiah, West Champaran district, Bihar for alleged commission of the offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A), 23(a) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

 

 

The Court noted that the quantity of contraband seized was smaller than the prescribed commercial quantity under the statute, and that the appellant’s incarceration had already extended beyond seven months without trial progress. Holding that such detention in these circumstances was unjustified, the Bench ordered his release on bail with conditions as may be imposed by the trial court.

However, the Court inserted a significant caveat in its order. It recorded that this was the second NDPS case in which the appellant had been implicated and, therefore, expressly cautioned that if the appellant was found involved in any similar case in future, the bail granted would be susceptible to immediate cancellation by the trial court, High Court or the Supreme Court itself.

The Bench further clarified that the observations made were limited to the issue of bail and would not influence adjudication on the merits of the prosecution case.

By setting aside the High Court's order, the Supreme Court has reiterated the consistent view that in cases under the NDPS Act involving non-commercial quantities, bail should not be refused mechanically, especially when the accused had spent substantial time in custody without the commencement of trial proceedings. The judgment outlines the balance courts need to effect between the stringency of the NDPS Act and the fundamental right to liberty.


Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985