In cases involving commercial quantities of contraband under the NDPS Act, delay in trial alone is not a sufficient ground for granting bail, as the stringent conditions of Section 37 must be satisfied.

ORDER

1. The Applicant has filed 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.11191011230161 of 2023 registered with D.C.B. Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offence punishable under Sections 8(C), 21(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 05.06.2023 and since than, he is in custody. Thus, the applicant has undergone incarceration for period of almost 3 years and there has been no progress in the in trial after the arrest of the applicant. He further submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present offence without any material connecting the present applicant with the offence in question. He therefore submitted to allow the present application and enlarge the applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions.

3. Learned APP has opposed the present application contending that the applicant is having another antecedent of similar nature. Moreover, in the present case, the applicant had transferred money through one witness to the other co-accused and the applicant was in constant touch with the other co-accused. Thus, there is an active involvement of the applicant in the offence in question. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present application.

4. Heard learned advocates for the parties. The applicant had earlier preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.3439 of 2025 which was allowed to be withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 07.03.2025. Thereafter, the applicant had preferred another application being Criminal Misc. Application No.4615 of 2026 which was also allowed to be withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 05.03.2026. Learned advocate appearing for the applicant is not in a position to show any change in circumstances after the withdrawal of the earlier application.

5. It is the case of prosecution against the applicant that the contraband substance of Mephedrone worth 129 gms, which was seized in the present offence, had been called for by the present applicant. The investigation papers indicate that the applicant had transferred the amount of Rs.7,000/- to the other co-accused through one witness. The applicant is having another antecedent of similar nature.

6. Sofar as the aspect of delay in trial is concerned, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Union of India Vs. Vigin K. Varghese, only delay in trial cannot be the ground for grant of bail in cases involving the commercial quantity of contraband substance and a specific finding as regards guilt is to be recorded in view of the provision of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

7. Having regard to these aspects, no case is made out to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. Hence, the present application stands dismissed.