IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 [Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.9792/2025]

UNION OF INDIA Appellant VERSUS NAMDEO ASHRUBA NAKADE Respondent(s)

O R D E R

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.

Signature Not Verified

4. The relevant facts of the case are that 731.075 Digitally signed by SONIA BHASIN Date: 2025.11.15 Reason:

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 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 t