Supreme Court grants bail to NDPS accused after 2 years in custody, trial stalled
Synopsis
The Supreme Court has overruled the Calcutta High Court and granted bail to an NDPS accused who spent nearly two years behind bars — with only 1 of 39 prosecution witnesses examined. The ruling is a sharp reminder that pre-trial detention under stringent drug laws cannot stretch indefinitely when trials show no sign of concluding.
Key Takeaways
The Supreme Court on 5 June granted bail to Bapan Haldar , accused under the NDPS Act , after nearly two years in custody.
Haldar was arrested on 14 July 2024 following recovery of 20,000 bottles of Phensedyl cough syrup from a container in West Bengal .
Only 1 of 39 prosecution witnesses had been examined at the time of the Supreme Court's order.
A bench of Justice P.S.
Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar set aside the Calcutta High Court order that had denied bail.
Three co-accused in the same case had already been granted bail prior to this ruling.
The Supreme Court on Friday, 5 June granted bail to Bapan Haldar, an accused booked under the stringent provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, observing that he had spent nearly two years in custody with no realistic prospect of the trial concluding in the near future. The ruling sets aside a Calcutta High Court order that had previously denied him regular bail.
Background of the Case
Haldar is named in an FIR registered at Bhimpur Police Station in Krishnanagar Police District, West Bengal, facing charges under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. According to the prosecution, police received credible information about a container allegedly carrying contraband. On 14 July 2024, upon inspection of the container, two individuals — including Haldar — were apprehended, and 20,000 bottles of Phensedyl cough syrup were allegedly recovered, leading to the registration of the FIR.
What the Supreme Court Observed
A bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar allowed Haldar's appeal, taking note of several key facts. Three co-accused persons had already been granted bail, charges had been framed, and no further custodial interrogation of Haldar was required. Critically, only one official witness had been examined out of 39 prosecution witnesses cited in the charge sheet.
The bench recorded: 'Having considered the matter in detail and taking note of the fact that the appellant has already undergone incarceration of more than one year and ten months and that there is no possibility of the trial to be concluded in near future, we consider it appropriate to release the appellant on bail in the facts and circumstances of the case.'
Why the High Court Had Refused Bail
The Calcutta High Court, in a single-judge order by Justice Tirthankar Ghosh, had declined bail despite acknowledging that Haldar had been in custody for over one year and nine months and that only one of 39 witnesses had been examined. Justice Ghosh had reasoned: 'Having considered the consequence, if the case is proved and the seizure till date has been unchallenged, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.' The Supreme Court found this reasoning insufficient given the prolonged incarceration and the glacial pace of the trial.
Significance and Broader Context
The ruling underscores a consistent thread in Supreme Court jurisprudence: that undertrial detention cannot be allowed to become a de facto punishment, particularly under special statutes like the NDPS Act that carry stringent bail conditions. This comes amid growing judicial concern over overcrowded prisons and trials that stretch years beyond reasonable timelines. The apex court directed that Haldar be released on bail subject to terms and conditions imposed by the trial court.
The case reflects a broader pattern of NDPS bail matters reaching the Supreme Court after High Courts apply a conservative reading of the statute's twin conditions — a trend the apex court has increasingly pushed back on when prolonged pre-trial custody is involved.
Point of View
Treating the statute's rigour as a substitute for judicial reasoning. The apex court's consistent pushback on prolonged undertrial detention under special laws is welcome, but it also exposes a deeper problem: if the trial machinery cannot move faster, bail at the Supreme Court level becomes the only safety valve — an outcome that serves neither the accused nor the justice system.
NationPress
21 Jul 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the Supreme Court grant bail to Bapan Haldar?
The Supreme Court granted bail because Haldar had spent nearly two years in custody and only one of 39 prosecution witnesses had been examined, with no prospect of the trial concluding soon. The bench held that prolonged pre-trial detention under these circumstances made bail appropriate.
What charges does Bapan Haldar face under the NDPS Act?
Haldar faces charges under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, related to the alleged recovery of 20,000 bottles of Phensedyl cough syrup from a container in West Bengal's Krishnanagar Police District on 14 July 2024.
Why had the Calcutta High Court refused bail to Haldar?
A single-judge bench of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh declined bail, citing the unchallenged seizure and the severity of consequences if the case were proved. The High Court acknowledged the prolonged custody but was not inclined to grant relief given the nature of the alleged offence.
What did the Supreme Court direct after granting bail?
The Supreme Court directed that Bapan Haldar be released on bail subject to such terms and conditions as the trial court may impose. The apex court set aside the Calcutta High Court order that had rejected his regular bail plea.
What is the broader significance of this ruling?
The ruling reinforces the Supreme Court's position that undertrial detention cannot become a de facto punishment, even under special statutes like the NDPS Act. It highlights judicial concern over trials that stall for years, with the apex court increasingly intervening when High Courts apply an overly rigid reading of bail restrictions in prolonged custody cases.
