Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice N.V. Anjaria set aside the bail granted to an accused facing charges under the NDPS Act for allegedly transporting 731.075 kilograms of ganja valued at about ₹2.91 crore. The Court directed the accused to surrender within two weeks and held that the statutory conditions for release were not satisfied. Noting that an assurance offered by the accused’s brother could not influence the decision, the Bench stated that responsibility for alleged offences rests with the accused alone and cannot be transferred to family members.

The appeal concerned a challenge to an order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh granting bail to an accused charged under Section 8(c) read with Sections 20, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution case recorded that 731.075 kilograms of ganja, categorized as commercial quantity, was recovered from a lorry driven and owned by the accused. The chargesheet had been filed on 03.05.2024.

Also Read: Supreme Court Dismisses Tenant’s Appeal In Wilful Default Eviction Case; “mere filing of an appeal does not by itself operate as a stay” As No Stay Was Obtained Against Fair Rent Order

Before the Supreme Court, the State submitted that the High Court did not record the mandatory satisfaction required under Section 37 for offences carrying a minimum sentence of ten years, and relied on precedent establishing that bail in such cases is an exception. It was also submitted that the accused may be involved in organized trafficking.

The accused argued that he had remained in custody for about one year and four months, that the trial had not progressed to the stage of framing charges, and that his continued presence could be secured through an undertaking furnished by his brother, a Sepoy in the Indian Army. Supporting documents such as the brother’s affidavit, service certificate, and identity details were placed before the High Court.

The Court observed that “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.” It recorded that “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.”

Addressing the broader context, the Court stated that “the issue of substance abuse has emerged as a global public health crisis in the twenty-first century, affecting every country worldwide.” It referred to international data, noting that “some 316 million people worldwide had used drugs in the past year…which indicates a higher prevalence of drug use.”

The Court recorded domestic concerns relating to drug abuse, observing that substance misuse undermines various aspects of social and individual wellbeing. It cited precedent stating that “the debilitating impact of drug trade and drug abuse is an immediate and serious concern for India.”

On the facts of the present matter, the Court stated that although the accused had been in custody for one year and four months and charges were yet to be framed, “the allegations are serious inasmuch as not only is the recovery much in excess of the commercial quantity but the Respondent-accused allegedly got the cavities ingeniously fabricated below the trailor to conceal the contraband.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court : Cancellation Of Registered Conveyances Lies Exclusively With Civil Courts Despite SARFAESI Proceedings Before DRT

The Court noted that the length of custody could not be considered excessive for offences punishable with ten to twenty years. Addressing the undertaking provided by the accused’s brother, the Court stated that “if the Respondent were to abscond, his brother cannot be sent to prison. In India, the alleged sins of an accused cannot be visited on his brother or other family members.”

The Court recorded: “Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in Criminal Petition No.727 of 2025 is set aside. The Respondent-accused is directed to surrender within a period of two weeks. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. S D Sanjay, A.S.G.; Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR; Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv.; Ms. Mili Baxi, Adv.; Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv.; Mr. Nisarg Choudhary, Adv.; Mr. Pallav Mongia, Adv.; Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR

For the Respondents: Mr. Dilip Annasaheb Taur, AOR

Case Title: Union of India v. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade
Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising from SLP (Crl) No. 9792/2025
Bench: Justice Manmohan, Justice N.V. Anjaria