1. In this application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short BNSS), the petitioner is charged of offences under Section 21 ( c) and 22 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( in short NDPS Act).

2. The core issue is whether the accused who is in custody since 5th July, 2025 and the charge sheet has been filed on 31st August, 2025 is to be released on bail in view of the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India vis-à vis the restrictions laid down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

3. The petitioner has cited a judgment delivered on 5th November, 2026 in Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 12451-12453 of 2026 (Sri Sujit Das & Ors. Etc. –versus- Union of India). By relying upon paragraph 48 of the said judgment it is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case has expressed its reservation regarding the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2026 (7) SCC 513 corresponding to 2026 SCC Online SC 671 (State of Punjab-versus- Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora).

4. In Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora (supra), the Supreme Court has held that the mandatory requirement under Section 37 (1) (b) (ii) of NDPS Act has to be satisfied even if the accused seeks bail in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

5. In Sujit Das & Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court in paragraph 49 thereof has expressed reservation about the observations made in Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora (supra) in respect of the rights conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. The petitioner, therefore, says that in the light of the observations made in the Sujit Das & Ors. (supra), the ratio laid down in Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora (supra) is whittled down and an accused under the NDPS Act despite there being rigours under Section 37 of the said Act is entitled to be enlarged on bail, if the conditions for granting bail under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are attracted. The long period of the detention and that charge- sheet has been already filed, the petitioner is entitled to bail under the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7. On behalf of the prosecution, three judgments have been cited to oppose the prayer for bail.

a) A single Bench judgment of this Court in CRM (NDPS) 388 of 2026 (Manoyara Beowa @ Manwara Bewa Vs. The State of West Bengal) delivered on 3rd September, 2026 is relied upon to submit that in paragraph 15 thereof, the learned Single Judge after considering all relevant judgments have held the following:

15. The salient principles of law that emerge from the aforesaid decisions, read together harmoniously, are as follows: -

(i) In a case involving seizure of commercial quantity of narcotic drug and/or psychotropic substance, bail is not be granted unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has not committed the offence and that he is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. Such a finding must be recorded in the order granting bail.

(ii) Article 21 of the Indian Constitution includes within its fold a citizen’s right to speedy trial in a criminal case. However, to start with, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, insofar as the said right is concerned, must operate within the framework of the NDPS Act. Some delay in progress of the trial, is not ground enough to grant bail to the accused ignoring the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

(iii) If the accused/under-trial is in custody for a ‘prolonged period’ and there is no possibility of an early conclusion of the trial, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution will operate with its full might and override the restriction in Section 37 of the NDPS Act entitling the Courts to enlarge the accused person on bail without recording its satisfaction on the two aspects mentioned in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

(iv) The observation at paragraph 9