1. Accused arraigned under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 55
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. SUNDRESH, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Dip Singh Gurjar – Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2025 (@ SLP(CRL.) No.14409 of 2024)
Decided On ; 03-01-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv. Mr. Ravi Shanker Jha, Adv. Ms. Pooja, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Standing Counsel, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav, AOR Ms. Kritika Yadav, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv. Mr. Ravi Shanker Jha, Adv. Ms. Pooja, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Standing Counsel, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav, AOR Ms. Kritika Yadav, Adv.
The court granted bail based on the lengthy incarceration of the appellant and insufficient witness examination, emphasizing the need for timely judicial proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 20(b)(ii)
(C) - Bail granted to appellant arraigned for narcotic offence after 1½ years of incarceration and examination of only five out of twelve witnesses, two of whom turned hostile. (Paras 2, 3, 4)
(B) The court considered the absence of prior antecedents and the limited progress of the trial in granting bail. (Paras 3, 4)
Facts of the case:
The appellant faced charges under narcotics law and had been incarcerated for over 1½ years with only limited witness examination.
Findings of Court:
The court set aside the previous order and granted bail to the appellant.
Issues: The primary issue was the appellant's prolonged incarceration without sufficient witness examination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the lengthy detention and lack of evidence justified granting bail.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Court noted the duration of incarceration, the slow progress of the trial with witnesses turning hostile, and the absence of prior criminal antecedents. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Bail may be granted considering prolonged incarceration, slow trial progress, and lack of prior criminal antecedents. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. Impugned order set aside and bail granted subject to conditions imposed by the Trial Court. (Para 5 , 6 )
5. What factors are considered for granting bail in proceedings under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act?
The court considers the period of incarceration, the progress of the trial—including the number of witnesses examined and those who turned hostile—and the absence of prior criminal antecedents. (Para 3 , 4 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant has been arraigned as an accused for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
3. The appellant has been under incarceration for more than 1½ years. Only five witnesses out of twelve have been examined of which two of them turned hostile. There are no prior antecedents in which the appellant is involved.
4. Considering the above, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and grant bail to the appellant.
5. Accordingly, the impugned order stands set aside and the appellant is granted bail subject to the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court.
6. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
