Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case Over Prolonged Detention; Says Section 37 Rigours Do Not Bar Bail for Trial Delay

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 25.09.2026

Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case Over Prolonged Detention; Says Section 37 Rigours Do Not Bar Bail for Trial Delay

The Calcutta High Court granted bail to an accused facing prosecution under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, holding that prolonged incarceration coupled with little possibility of commencement of trial justified release on bail.

Significantly, the Division Bench observed that a bail plea founded on delay in trial is not fettered by the restrictions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1109.

Background of the Case

• The bail application was filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Kaliachak Police Station Case No. 875 of 2022 dated 12 August 2022.
• The petitioner, Alok Kumar Mandal @ Alok Mandal, was facing proceedings for alleged offences under Sections 21(c), 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act.
• Section 21(c) concerns contraventions involving a commercial quantity of manufactured drugs or preparations, while Section 27A deals with financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders. Section 29 relates to abetment and criminal conspiracy.

Accused in Custody for One Year and Eight Months

• Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Mandal had already remained in custody for approximately one year and eight months.
• More importantly, despite this period of incarceration, charges had still not been framed. The petitioner therefore sought bail primarily on the ground of delay in the criminal proceedings.

Investigation Was Still Continuing

• The State placed a report before the High Court.
• The report showed that further investigation was still underway and forensic analysis of the mobile phone belonging to co-accused Devendra Ahuja was awaited.
• The status of the investigation became particularly relevant because it indicated that commencement of the trial was not imminent.

High Court Finds Little Possibility of Trial Commencing Soon

• After considering the material on record, the Division Bench noted that there was “little possibility of commencement of trial.”
• The Court also took into account the petitioner’s prolonged detention and concluded that he had made out a case for bail on the ground of delay in trial.
• The case therefore turned substantially on the effect of prolonged pre-trial incarceration in an NDPS prosecution where the trial itself had yet to effectively commence.

Section 37 NDPS Act Does Not Fetter Bail Based on Trial Delay: High Court

• The most significant observation in the order concerns the stringent bail restrictions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
• Ordinarily, Section 37 imposes additional conditions for granting bail in cases involving specified serious NDPS offences and commercial quantity.

However, the High Court held:

• “Bail prayer on the ground of delay in trial is not fettered by restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act…”
• The Court relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1109 for this proposition.
• The ruling therefore distinguishes a bail claim based upon the merits of the prosecution from one arising because continued pre-trial incarceration has become prolonged while the trial remains unlikely to commence within a reasonable period.

Reliance on Supreme Court’s Rabi Prakash Decision

The only judicial precedent expressly cited in the short order is:

Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1109.

• By relying on Rabi Prakash, the High Court treated prolonged detention and delay in trial as grounds capable of being considered notwithstanding the statutory restrictions governing ordinary bail under Section 37.

Bail Granted on ₹10,000 Bond

• Having found sufficient grounds for release, the High Court directed that Alok Kumar Mandal be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties of the like amount, one of whom must be a local surety.
• The bond was required to be furnished to the satisfaction of the Judge, Special Court under the NDPS Act-cum-Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Malda.

Conditions Imposed by the High Court

• The grant of bail was subject to conditions intended to protect the trial process.
• The petitioner was directed to appear before the Trial Court on every date of hearing until further orders. He was also prohibited from intimidating witnesses or tampering with evidence in any manner.
• The High Court further clarified that if the petitioner failed to appear before the Trial Court without justifiable cause, the Trial Court would be at liberty to cancel the bail in accordance with law without further reference to the High Court.
• The bail application was accordingly allowed.

Why the Decision Is Significant

• The order is important for NDPS bail jurisprudence because it reiterates that the stringent conditions prescribed by Section 37 cannot be considered in isolation from prolonged pre-trial detention and delay in commencement of trial.
• The decision does not hold that Section 37 ceases to apply generally in NDPS prosecutions. Rather, the Court specifically dealt with a situation where the accused had remained incarcerated for one year and eight months, charges had not been framed, further investigation remained pending, and there was little prospect of the trial commencing soon.
• The distinction is important: the relief was based on delay in trial and prolonged detention, not on a final determination concerning the merits of the NDPS allegations.

Key Takeaway

The Calcutta High Court has reaffirmed that prolonged incarceration and substantial delay in commencement of an NDPS trial can constitute an independent basis for bail, and a bail plea founded on such delay is not fettered by the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Calcutta High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi