Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MR. RAJESH BINDAL, MR. MANMOHAN, JJ
THE UNION OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
KONDIBA GUNJAL & ANR. – Respondent
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 9778/2025
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The Supreme Court of India upheld the High Court's order granting bail to the respondent involved in a narcotics case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Court found that the prolonged custody of over four years without charges and the absence of framed charges justified the bail (!) (!) .
The petition filed by the Union of India sought to set aside the bail granted to the respondent, citing the large quantity of narcotics allegedly recovered and arguing that bail should not have been granted pending trial (!) .
The respondent was arrested on August 9, 2020, and had been in custody since then for more than 4 years and 3 months. The Court emphasized that, despite the serious nature of the allegations, the delay in framing charges and the length of custody supported the High Court's decision (!) .
The Court directed that the trial should be expedited, with a specific date set for framing of charges (October 30, 2025), and instructed the trial court to conclude the trial within approximately one year from that date (!) (!) .
The Court clarified that any observations made in the impugned order would not affect the merits of the case, and the Special Leave Petition was disposed of accordingly (!) .
All pending applications, if any, were also disposed of as part of this order (!) .
Let me know if you need a detailed legal analysis or further assistance.
O R D E R
The prayer made in the present petition is for setting aside of bail granted to respondent No.1 who was involved in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 . He was granted bail by the High Court considering the stage of the trial and the period of custody, which was more than 4 years.
Learned Additional Solicitor General for the petitioner-Union of India submitted that considering the huge quantity of narcotics allegedly recovered from respondent No.1, he should not have been granted concession of bail, pending trial.
On the other hand, learned senior counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that respondent No.1 was arrested in the case on 9th August, 2020. He was in custody since then for more than 4 years and 3 months. Even the charges had not been framed. Considering the aforesaid facts and that even the charges had not been framed, the High Court has rightly exercised the power.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the arguments as noticed above, in our opinion, the impugned order passed by the High Court does not call for any interference. The case is now stated to be fixed on 30th October, 2025 for framing of charge.
The Trial Court shall make an effort to frame charges on that day and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year from the next date of hearing.
We make it clear that any observation made by the High Court in the impugned order will not affect the merits of the controversy.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
