Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Bail Order in NDPS Matter and Directs Custody with Expedited Trial

A two-judge bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale heard the appeal against a High Court of Jharkhand order that had granted bail to an accused in an offence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). The State of Jharkhand challenged the High Court’s bail order in Criminal Appeal arising from SLP(Crl.) No. 1953/2024.

The Court allowed the State’s appeal and set aside the High Court order granting bail. The judgment recorded that, having regard to the submissions and to the nature of the offence as well as subsequent events, the High Court’s order was not sustainable. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the nature of the offence as also the fact that the respondent-accused has been arrested in a similar offence under the NDPS Act, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.11.2022, passed by the High Court of Jharkhand, is set aside. The respondent-accused is directed to be taken into custody in connection with Case No. 231 of 2022, registered at Police Station-Sadar, District-Chatra, Jharkhand. However, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same in accordance with law, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” The appeal was therefore allowed and the accused was ordered to be taken into custody, with a clear direction to the trial court to complete trial expeditiously.

Background The dispute arose after the High Court of Jharkhand, by order dated 24.11.2022 in B.A. No. 9276 of 2022, had granted bail to the respondent-accused in Case No. 231 of 2022 registered at Police Station Sadar, District Chatra, for an offence punishable under Section 18 NDPS Act. The State challenged the grant of bail by way of SLP(Criminal). The State submitted that after the accused’s release on bail the respondent-accused was involved in another NDPS case and was arrested on 12.07.2023, and that the trial in the present matter had already commenced with only three witnesses remaining. The respondent contended that the recovery was not of commercial quantity but of intermediate quantity and that the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act did not apply; she also noted that the present challenge was to the grant of bail and not a petition for cancellation of bail on account of breach of bail conditions. The record showed a concession by the respondent’s counsel that “at present, the respondent-accused is under arrest in connection with other offence punishable under the NDPS Act, registered after the present one.” Applying these facts and submissions, the Supreme Court found it appropriate to set aside the High Court order and directed custody. The Court additionally directed that the trial court should “expedite the trial and conclude the same in accordance with law, preferably within four months” from the date of receipt of the judgment. The appeal was allowed and pending applications were closed.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No. 1953/2024) Case Title: The State of Jharkhand v. Sunny Kumar @ Sunny Kumar Sao Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Farrukh Rasheed, Adv.; Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, AOR For the Respondent(s): Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, AOR; Ms. Pragya Barsaiyan, Adv.