The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a bail application filed by an individual charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, asserting that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution does not provide an automatic exemption from the stringent bail conditions prescribed in Section 37 of the special statute. The court emphasized that while constitutional protections remain paramount, they must operate within the framework of legislation specifically designed to combat the illicit drug trade.

The petitioner, Sajal Das, had sought enlargement on bail, highlighting his incarceration since July 5, 2025, and the completion of the investigation process, with the charge sheet filed on August 31, 2025. Invoking the protection of Article 21, the defense argued that the prolonged period of custody necessitated his release, particularly in light of recent judicial observations regarding the limitations of Section 37 when a trial is not likely to conclude within a reasonable timeframe. The petitioner further relied on recent Supreme Court remarks suggesting a reconsideration of the rigidity traditionally associated with Section 37.

However, Justice Arindam Mukherjee, presiding over the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri, rejected these contentions, maintaining that the severity of the offenses—involving commercial quantities of contraband—requires a rigorous application of the law. The court held that while the constitutional right to a speedy trial is fundamental, it does not supersede the legislative intent behind the NDPS Act, which serves as a vital tool for maintaining societal order.

Balancing Liberty and Legislative Mandates

The court’s reasoning centered on the necessity of weighing individual rights against the broader obligations of the justice system to protect the community. Justice Mukherjee noted that while the petitioner possessed no prior criminal antecedents, the mere absence of a criminal history does not establish a sufficient basis to deviate from the statutory requirements of Section 37, which mandate that a court must have reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit further offenses before granting bail.

"The right to have a speedy trial is not taken away in view of the restrictions laid down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act ," the court observed, clarifying that the procedure established by law for NDPS cases remains a valid and necessary barrier against the proliferation of substance abuse. The court further clarified that the constitutional court’s ability to grant bail on the ground of fundamental rights violations is not entirely ousted, yet it must be exercised with extreme caution, particularly where the legislative policy is aimed at deterring drug trafficking.

The court extensively discussed the conflict between personal liberty and the rights of the civil society, noting that "the issue of personal liberty of an accused vis-à-vis the personal rights and liberties of the civil society is required to be weighed." In this context, the court highlighted that an individual involved in the distribution of commercial quantities of narcotics poses a substantial risk to the socio-economic integrity of the nation, thereby justifying more stringent judicial scrutiny during the pre-trial phase.

Risk Assessment in Narcotics Proceedings

A critical factor in the court's decision was the specific factual landscape of the case, which shifted the focus away from a generalized application of constitutional rights. The court observed that the proximity of the petitioner’s residence to an international border significantly elevated the risk of the accused absconding if released. Furthermore, the court expressed concerns regarding the integrity of the ongoing trial, noting that the possibility of the petitioner tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses could not be ruled out given the specific circumstances surrounding the case.

The judgment also referenced the decision in Manoyara Beowa @ Manwara Bewa Vs. The State of West Bengal , which solidified the stance that some delay in trial proceedings is not sufficient grounds to bypass the twin conditions of Section 37. The court reaffirmed that the "prolonged incarceration" argument, while theoretically potent under Article 21, must be evaluated based on the specific evidence presented in each case.

By rejecting the application, the court underscored that the NDPS Act, being a specialized statute enacted to fulfill international obligations, demands a departure from the routine approach to bail. The court noted that in matters involving recovery of contraband in commercial quantities, the statutory mandate remains the primary guideline for judicial intervention, effectively limiting the scope for discretionary bail based solely on the duration of detention.

The dismissal of this application confirms that the Calcutta High Court will continue to adopt a cautious approach in NDPS cases involving commercial quantities. The court concluded that until the trial progresses and evidence is subjected to judicial testing, the potential for harm to society and the risk of the accused absconding or influencing the trial process remain the primary considerations that outweigh the argument for interim release. The petitioner will remain in judicial custody as the trial in C.R. NDPS Case No. 88 of 2025 proceeds.