Supreme Court Unlocks Jail Doors: Bail Granted in Massive Ganja Haul Case Over Stalled Trial

In a swift hearing on May 5, 2026, a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan at the Supreme Court of India granted regular bail to Rajadurai, accused of possessing nearly 23 kg of ganja—a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. This came after the Madras High Court denied relief, but the apex court zeroed in on the glaring trial delay.

Locked Up for a Year, Trial Nowhere in Sight

The saga began with FIR No. 11 of 2025 at Kottampati Police Station in Madurai, charging Rajadurai under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). Seized: 22.950 kgs of ganja . Despite charges being framed, not a single witness had been examined, leaving Rajadurai in judicial custody for over a year.

The petitioner approached the Supreme Court via SLP(Crl.) No. 4729/2026 after the High Court at Madurai rejected regular bail in CRLOP(MD) No. 11505/2025, citing the stringent NDPS bail conditions for commercial quantities.

Petitioner's Cry: 'Justice Delayed is Justice Denied'

Counsel for Rajadurai, including AORs Narender Kumar Verma and A. Lakshminarayanan , hammered on the prolonged incarceration without progress. "Client in judicial custody past more than one year... charge has been framed... yet till this date not a single witness has been examined," they argued, invoking the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 .

The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by AOR Sabarish Subramanian, likely leaned on Section 37 NDPS—requiring courts to ensure the accused is not guilty and unlikely to reoffend—given the commercial haul's gravity.

Navigating NDPS Minefield: Delay vs. Statutory Safeguards

Section 37 NDPS sets a high bar for bail in commercial quantity cases, demanding twin satisfactions: innocence presumption and no reoffending risk. The High Court stuck to this, but the Supreme Court exercised discretion, persuaded by the inertia.

This ruling contrasts sharply with a recent decision in State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora (2026 LiveLaw (SC) 421), where Justice Sanjay Karol's bench rejected delay alone as grounds for bail, holding speedy trial rights under Article 21 cannot override NDPS rigors. Here, the bench carved a nuanced path, focusing on facts: over a year jailed, trial stalled post-charges (Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 462).

Court's Sharp Observations Straight from the Bench

  • On the backdrop : "The petitioner has been denied regular bail by the High Court in connection with the First Information Report bearing No.11 of 2025... for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) 20(b) (ii) (c) and 29(1) of the... NDPS Act."
  • Quantity specified : "The contraband involved in the present case is 22.950 kgs of ganja."
  • Delay highlighted : "Her client is in judicial custody past more than one year. We are informed that although charge has been framed by the Trial Court yet till this date not a single witness has been examined."
  • Discretion invoked : "In the facts and circumstances of this case , we are persuaded to exercise our discretion in favour of the petitioner."

Bail Order: Freedom with Strings Attached

"The petitioner be released on bail forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject to the terms and conditions that the Trial Court may deem fit to impose," ordered the bench. The SLP was disposed of, pending IAs closed, and a linked petition (SLP(Crl.) No. 5842/2026) withdrawn.

This discretionary nod signals courts may weigh extreme delays heavily in NDPS matters, potentially easing bail for long-waiting accused where trials crawl—provided no other risks loom. Future benches might cite it to balance Section 37's toughness against constitutional speed.