1. Conviction under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — Grant of suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal — Challenge to High Court order. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 315
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Narcotic Control Bureau – Appellant
Versus
Lakhwinder Singh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 475 of 2025 (Arising Out Of S.L.P. (Criminal) No(s). 5215 of 2021)
Decided On : 29-01-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Suryaprakash V. Raju, A.S.G. Ms. Sairica Raju, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kr. Chourasia, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Akshay Verma, AOR Ms. Sushma Verma, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Singh, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Suryaprakash V. Raju, A.S.G. Ms. Sairica Raju, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kr. Chourasia, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Akshay Verma, AOR Ms. Sushma Verma, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Singh, Adv.
The court retains discretion to grant bail pending appeal even if the accused has not served half of the sentence, emphasizing the protection of rights under Article 21.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 37 - Bail pending appeal - Respondent convicted under NDPS Act with a sentence of 10 years - High Court granted bail after 4.5 years of incarceration, noting appeal unlikely to be heard before completion of sentence - Court emphasized that rigid adherence to the half-sentence rule could violate rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Paras 3, 5, 6, 8)
(B) Bail - Powers of the Court - The Court retains discretion to grant bail even if the accused has not served half of the sentence, particularly in cases where the appeal is unlikely to be heard in a timely manner. (Paras 5, 7)
Facts of the case:
The respondent was convicted under the NDPS Act and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. After serving 4.5 years, he sought bail pending appeal, which was granted by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The High Court's decision to grant bail was upheld, as the appeal was unlikely to be heard before the respondent completed his sentence.
Issues: The main issues included the interpretation of bail eligibility under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the implications of Article 21 rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that strict adherence to the half-sentence rule could infringe upon the rights of the accused, allowing for bail to be granted based on the merits of the case.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - The High Court granted bail pending appeal after the respondent had already served 4.5 years of a 10‑year sentence, deeming the appeal unlikely to be heard before completion of the term. (!) - The Supreme Court held that the discretion to grant bail pending appeal remains intact even if the accused has not completed half of the sentence, emphasizing that a rigid half‑sentence rule would infringe Article 21 rights. (!) - The Court reiterated that the power to grant bail based on merits is preserved and should not be curtailed by any prior directives or one‑time measures. (!) - The Court confirmed that the appeal was dismissed while upholding the High Court's decision to grant bail and suspension of sentence. (!)
What is the scope of bail eligibility under Section 37 of the NDPS Act?
What are the rights of an accused under Article 21 regarding bail pending appeal?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether bail pending appeal for NDPS convicts requires completion of half the substantive sentence or is constrained by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. (Para 4 , 7 )
3. Rigid application of sentence-completion rules for bail pending appeal may violate Article 21 and defeat the right of appeal. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
4. Courts may grant bail pending appeal if a substantial sentence is served and the appeal is unlikely to be heard before sentence completion, notwithstanding Section 37, NDPS Act. (Para 5 , 7 )
5. Appeal dismissed — High Court order granting suspension of sentence and bail upheld. (Para 8 )
6. Does a convict under the NDPS Act necessarily need to serve half their sentence to be eligible for bail pending appeal?
No. There is no rule of thumb requiring a convict to undergo half the substantive sentence. Courts retain the power to grant bail or suspension of sentence on merits, as rigid adherence could violate Article 21 and defeat the right of appeal. (Para 5 , 6 )
7. How does Section 37 of the NDPS Act affect the grant of bail during the pendency of an appeal?
While Appellate Courts are bound by the constraints of Section 37, they may still grant bail if the accused has served a substantial part of the sentence and the appeal is unlikely to be heard before the sentence expires to avoid violating Article 21. (Para 7 )
8. What is the legal effect of the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India directions on regular bail applications?
Those directions were one-time measures for undertrials facing delayed trials and do not curtail the court's power to grant regular bail or suspension of sentence based on the merits of the case. (Para 5 )
JUDGMENT :
(Abhay S. Oka, J.)
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard Shri S.V. Raju, learned ASG appearing for the appellant.
3. By the impugned order, the High Court has granted relief of suspension of sentence and bail to the respondent/accused pending an appeal against the conviction. The respondent was convicted for an offence punishable under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “the NDPS Act”). The substantive sentence of the respondent is 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. In the appeal of the year 2021, the High Court noted that the respondent had undergone incarceration for a period of 4 ½ years out of the fixed term sentence of 10 years. As the appeal was not likely to be heard before the completion of the sentence, the High Court granted relief of suspension of sentence and bail to the respondent.
4. The learned ASG relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee representing Undertrial Prisoners vs. Union of India & Ors., (1994) 6 SCC 731 He submitted that, as laid down in the decision, unless the respondent had undergone a sentence for the one-half period, he was not entitled to bail pending the final hearing of the appeal against conviction. This is so when he is already held guilty of the offence punishable under the NDPS Act.
5. The relevant part of paragraph 15 and paragraph 16 of the said decision read thus:
“15. ... We, therefore, direct as under:
(i) Where the undertrial is accused of an offence(s) under the Act prescribing a punishment of imprisonment of five years or less and fine, such an undertrial shall be released on bail if he has been in jail for a period which is not less than half the punishment provided for the offence with which he is charged and where he is charged with more than one offence, the offence providing the highest punishment. If the offence with which he is charged prescribes the maximum fine, the bail amount shall be 50% of the said amount with two sureties for like amount. If the maximum fine is not prescribed bail shall be to the satisfaction of the Special Judge concerned with two sureties for like amount.
(ii) Where the undertrial accused is charged with an offence(s) under the Act providing for punishment exceeding five years and fine, such an undertrial shall be released on bail on the term set out in (i) above provided that his bail amount shall in no case be less than Rs 50,000 with two sureties for like amount.
(iii) Where the undertrial accused is charged with an offence(s) under the Act punishable with minimum imprisonment of ten years and a minimum fine of Rupees one lakh, such an undertrial shall be released on bail if he has been in jail for not less than five years provided he furnishes bail in the sum of Rupees one lakh with two sureties for like amount.
(iv) Where an undertrial accused is charged for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 31 and 31-A of the Act, such an undertrial shall not be entitled to be released on bail by virtue of this order.
The directives in clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) above shall be subject to the following general conditions:
(i) The undertrial accused entitled to be released on bail shall deposit his passport with the learned Judge of the Special Court concerned and if he does not hold a passport he shall file an affidavit to that effect in the form that may be prescribed by the learned Special Judge. In the latter case the learned Special Judge will, if he has reason to doubt the accuracy of the statement, write to the Passport Officer concerned to verify the statement and the Passport Officer shall verify his record and send a reply within three weeks. If he fails to reply within the said time, the learned Special Judge will be entitled to act on the statement of the undertrial accused;
(ii) the undertrial accused shall on being released on bail present himself at the police station which has prosecuted him at least once in a month in the case of those covered under clau
