Grant of regular bail in NDPS cases after charge-sheet filing, considering the duration of custody, parity with co-accused, and the principle that indefinite detention without trial is unwarranted.

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Chintan Popat on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. J.K. Shah on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. The present applicant who has been arraigned as an accused has preferred this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R.No. 11200048243541 of 2024 registered with Vapi Town Police Station, District: Valsad for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C), 22(b)(ii)B and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’) after filing of the charge-sheet more particularly the application preferred by the applicant having been rejected by the learned Trial Court.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that since the charge-sheet is filed no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

5. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present applicant as coming out from the charge-sheet, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

6. This Court has heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the FIR including the charge-sheet papers as well as order passed by learned Session Court as well as affidavit filed by the investigating officer before the learned Trial Court. Following aspects are considered:

(i) The allegation being that the accused were transacting in contraband- Cannabis.

(ii) The case against the applicant being that the present applicant and his son were dealing with the contraband and whereas during the raid 5.333 kilograms of the contraband have been recovered from the residents.

(iii) While it would appear that the present applicant has four antecedents, three of which are under the NDPS Act whereas in two of the said offences the applicant is stated to be acquitted, and only one offence under the NDPS is stated to be pending and whereas one other offence under IPC is pending trial.

(iv) This Court has also considered the fact that son of the present applicant has been released on regular by learned Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 04.03.2025 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 4412 of 2025.

(v) This Court has also considered the fact that the applicant is in custody since 26.12.2024 that is almost one and half years.

7. This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40

8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against in the First Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and en