1. Recovery of commercial quantity of ganja from a vehicle owned and driven by the accused — Bail application under the NDPS Act. (Para 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1975
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Manmohan, N.V. Anjaria, JJ.
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
Namdeo Ashruba Nakade – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4770 of 2025 [Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 9792 of 2025]
Decided On : 07-11-2025
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S D Sanjay, A.S.G., Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv., Ms. Mili Baxi, Adv., Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv. Mr. Nisarg Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Pallav Mongia, Adv., Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Dilip Annasaheb Taur, AOR
For the Petitioner: Mr. S D Sanjay, A.S.G., Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv., Ms. Mili Baxi, Adv., Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv. Mr. Nisarg Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Pallav Mongia, Adv., Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Dilip Annasaheb Taur, AOR
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Bail – Substance abuse not only affects individuals, families, and communities but also undermines various aspects of health including physical, social, political, cultural foundations, and mental well-being – Bail cancelled.
(2) In India, alleged sins of accused cannot be visited on his brother or other family members.
Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 37 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 482 – Bail – Grant of – Respondent booked for offences under Section 8(c) read with Sections 20, 28 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Issue of substance abuse has emerged as a global public health crisis in twenty-first century, affecting every country worldwide, as drug trafficking and addiction have become pervasive – In India, there has been a concerning increase in drug abuse among youth – Substance abuse not only affects individuals, families, and communities but also undermines various aspects of health including physical, social, political, cultural foundations, and mental well-being – Though Respondent-accused was in custody for one year four months and charges have not been framed, yet allegations are serious inasmuch as not only is recovery much in excess of commercial quantity but Respondent-accused allegedly got cavities ingeniously fabricated below Trailor to conceal contraband – Prima facie, respondent-accused is involved in drug trafficking in an organized manner – No case for dispensing with mandatory requirement of Section 37 of NDPS Act is made out in present matter – Accused has been charged with offences punishable with ten to twenty years rigorous imprisonment and it cannot be said that Respondent has been incarcerated for unreasonably long time – If Respondent were to abscond, his brother cannot be sent to prison – In India, alleged sins of accused cannot be visited on his brother or other family members – Order passed by High Court granting bail set aside. (Paras 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal has been filed challenging judgment dated 11.03.2025 passed by High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in Criminal Petition No.727 of 2025 whereby High Court granted bail to Respondent in S.C. No.144 of 2024 for offences under Section 8(c) read with Sections 20, 28 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Findings of Court:
Impugned order dated 11.03.2025 passed by High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in Criminal Petition No.727 of 2025 is set aside. Respondent-accused is directed to surrender within a period of two weeks.
Result : Criminal Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether bail can be granted based on trial delay and family undertakings despite mandatory conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
3. Serious allegations of organized trafficking involving fabricated concealment cavities and the severe societal impact of drug abuse. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
4. Mandatory requirements of Section 37 NDPS Act must be satisfied for bail in commercial quantity cases; trial delay does not automatically waive these conditions. (Para 5 , 12 , 13 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court bail order set aside — Accused directed to surrender. (Para 15 )
6. What is the legal requirement for granting bail in offences involving commercial quantities under the NDPS Act?
Section 37 is mandatory; bail cannot be granted unless the court is satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. (Para 5 , 12 )
7. Does a delay in trial or the length of incarceration justify dispensing with the mandatory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act?
No, especially where the offence carries a sentence of ten to twenty years, a period of incarceration may not be considered unreasonably long to warrant waiving Section 37. (Para 12 , 13 )
8. Is a third-party undertaking sufficient to ensure the presence of an accused for bail purposes in NDPS cases?
No, such undertakings are irrelevant because a family member cannot be imprisoned if the accused absconds, as the sins of the accused cannot be visited upon others. (Para 14 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 11.03.2025 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in Criminal Petition No.727 of 2025 whereby the High Court granted bail to the Respondent in S.C. No.144 of 2024 for offences under Section 8(c) read with Sections 20, 28 and 29 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’ for short).
3. The High Court while granting bail has held that investigative needs are over as the chargesheet stands filed on 03.05.2024. It has further held that the trial before the special Court is unlikely to take place in the immediate future and the Respondent’s continuous availability for smooth conduct of trial has been assured by his elder brother who is a Sepoy in the Indian Army.
4. The relevant facts of the case are that 731.075 kilograms of ganja valued at 2.91 Crore (which constitutes commercial quantity under the NDPS Act) was recovered from a lorry which was being driven by the Respondent and also owned by the Respondent.
5. Learned Additional Solicitor General for the State submits that the High Court has not provided justification for waiver of mandatory condition under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In support of his submission, he relies upon a judgment of this Court in Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Kashif 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3848 : (2025) 2 Supreme 268 wherein this Court has held as under:
“8.There has been consistent and persistent view of this Court that in the NDPS cases, where the offence is punishable with minimum sentence of ten years, the accused shall generally be not released on bail. Negation of bail is the rule and its grant is an exception. While considering the application for bail, the court has to bear in mind the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which are mandatory in nature. The recording of finding as mandated in Section 37 is a sine qua non for granting bail to the accused involved in the offences under the said Act…
xxx xxx xxx
39. The upshot of the above discussion may be summarized as under:
(i) The provisions of NDPS Act are required to be interpreted keeping in mind the scheme, object and purpose of the Act; as also the impact on the society as a whole. It has to be interpreted literally and not liberally, which may ultimately frustrate the object, purpose and preamble of the Act.
(ii) While considering the application for bail, the Court must bear in mind the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which are mandatory in nature. Recording of findings as mandated in Section 37 is sine qua non is known for granting bail to the accused involved in the offences under NDPS Act…”
6. Learned Additional Solicitor General contends that in view of the sections of NDPS Act attracted to the present case, the Respondent-accused is liable to be sentenced to a minimum term of ten years with the maximum term being twenty years.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent- accused states that the Respondent-accused has been granted bail after being in custody for nearly two years. He further contends that since the High Court was of the view that it would take a long time for the trial to conclude, the Respondent-accused was granted bail. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the following observations made in the impugned order:
“8. The further submission of the learned counsel for petitioner/accused is that respondent/DRI need not hold apprehensions of accused absconding in this case and placed on record, the sworn affidavit of elder brother of this petitioner. The affidavit is sworn by Sri Mhatardeo Ashruba Nakade. On 06.03.2025 during the hearing of this bail petition, the said individual appeared online and affirmed that he had given the undertaking affidavit on 01.01.2025. He further stated that he is a sepoy working in Indian Army. A copy of his service certificate, his Aadhar copy and copy of his identity card are placed on record. The submission of the elder brother of the petitione
