Beyond the Scene: Supreme Court Grants Conditional Bail in NDPS Offence.


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

In a recent judgment, on 31 October 2025, the Supreme Court of India granted bail to Mangal Yadav in connection with an NDPS case from Banda District, Uttar Pradesh, and again underlined that when the progress of the trial is uncertain, pre-trial incarceration need not become punitive. A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi allowed the appeal arising from the Allahabad High Court's order, which had refused the bail earlier.

The case arose under multiple penal provisions--Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, coupled with Sections 8 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Over six quintals of ganja valued at about three crore rupees were reportedly seized from a DCM Eicher truck and a Bolero car. While the police apprehended five persons on the spot, the appellant was not amongst those apprehended. He was arrested on 9 July 2024, based exclusively on the disclosure statement of one of the co-accused, who was his father.

 

 

The Court noted that the appellant had previous involvement in another NDPS case, where he was granted bail for possession of an intermediate quantity. This, it observed, prima facie showed a misuse of the earlier concession of bail. Even so, the Bench opined that the appellant had already spent considerable time in custody and that the trial was progressing at a slow pace. Whereas witnesses had been examined in the prior case, only charges had been framed in the present one, signaling that conclusion of the trial would take time.

The Supreme Court balanced these considerations and felt it appropriate to exercise its discretion under Article 136 and Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code by extending bail. Significantly, the grant was not unconditional. The appellant was directed to furnish his contact details, report weekly to the local police station, and ensure that he shall not indulge in any offence during the bail period. It was made clear that any non-compliance would amount to a misuse of the “concession of bail,” warranting automatic consequences.

Thus, the order reflects the nuanced stand of the Court in NDPS-related bail matters—acknowledging the stringency of the provisions of the Act and ensuring that the fundamental rights under Article 21 are not obliterated by procedural delay. It only reiterates that denial of bail cannot be an instrument of indefinite punishment, especially where the accused was not apprehended directly at the scene and the prosecution’s evidence is yet to be tested. By this, the Supreme Court continues to strike a judicious balance between the social interest in preventing narcotics trafficking and individual liberty, emphasizing that justice must be firm yet humane.


Indian Penal Code, 1860  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973