Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that the respondent could be granted bail even though he had not served half of his sentence. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau v Lakhwinder Singh (2025). 

What was the Background of Narcotics Control Bureau v. Lakhwinder Singh Case?   

• The case involves an appeal by the Narcotic Control Bureau against a High Court order granting bail to the respondent Lakhwinder Singh. 
• The respondent was originally convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. 
• In 2021, the respondent filed an appeal against his conviction before the High Court. At that time, he had served approximately 4.5 years of his 10-year sentence. 
• The High Court, noting that the appeal was unlikely to be heard before the completion of the sentence, granted relief in the form of suspension of sentence and bail to the respondent. 
• The Narcotic Control Bureau challenged this High Court order before the Supreme Court, arguing that under established precedent (Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee case), a person convicted under NDPS Act should not be granted bail unless they have served at least half of their sentence. 
• The case primarily concerns the interpretation of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and its application to bail applications during the pendency of appeals against conviction. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations: 
  • Addressed the precedent set in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee case, clarifying that:  
    • The earlier judgment was a one-time measure for undertrial prisoners. 
    • It doesn't limit the court's power to grant regular bail even if the served period is less than specified. 
    • The judgment cannot be interpreted to mean courts are powerless to grant bail. 
  • Made key observations regarding fixed-term sentences:  
    • A rigid approach would result in accused persons serving entire sentences before appeals are heard. 
    • This would violate rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
    • It would effectively defeat the right of appeal. 
  • Regarding Section 37 of NDPS Act:  
    • Acknowledged that appellate courts are bound by constraints of Section 37 of NDPS Act. 
    • However, held that if an accused has:  
      • Served a substantial part of the sentence 
      • Appeal is unlikely to be heard before completion of sentence 
      • Then the appellate court can grant bail 
    • Denying bail in such situations solely based on Section 37 would violate Article 21 rights 
  • On the specific case:  
    • Noted the respondent had served substantial part of 10-year sentence 
    • Appeal was unlikely to be heard before completion of sentence 
    • Found no reason to interfere with High Court's order 
    • Maintained provision for bail cancellation if liberty is misused 
• The Supreme Court held that the respondent could be granted bail even though he had not served half of his sentence. 

What is Section 37 of the NDPS Act? 

Section 37 deals with offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. 

• Cognizability of Offences: 
  • Every offence punishable under the NDPS Act is cognizable, meaning the police can make an arrest without a warrant and start an investigation. 
• Non-Bailable Offences: 
  • Offences under specific sections (such as sections 19, 24, and 27A) or offences involving commercial quantity are considered non-bailable. 
  • No person accused of such offences shall be released on bail or their own bond unless certain conditions are met. 
• Conditions for Granting Bail: 
  • The Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the bail application. 
  • If the Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offense and that they are not likely to commit any offense while on bail. 
• Additional Limitations on Bail: 
  • The limitations specified in clause (b) of subsection (1) are additional to any limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or any other law regarding granting of bail.

What were the Directives Laid Down in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India & Ors (1994)? 

• Following are the directives observed in the case of Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India & Ors (1994): 
  • For Offences with 5 Years or Less Imprisonment: 
    • Undertrial to be released on bail if jail time served equals half the prescribed punishment. 
    • Bail amount: 50% of maximum fine with two sureties. 
    • If no maximum fine prescribed, bail at Special Judge's discretion. 
  • For Offences Exceeding 5 Years: 
    • Same conditions as above. 
    • Minimum bail amount set at Rs. 50,000 with two sureties. 
  • For Offences with Minimum 10 Years and Rs. 1 Lakh Fine: 
    • Eligible for bail after serving 5 years. 
    • Bail amount: Rs. 1 lakh with two sureties. 
  • Exclusion: 
    • No bail eligibility for offenses under Sections 31 and 31-A of NDPS Act. 
• In the current case, the Supreme Court emphasized that this precedent shouldn't be interpreted as a rigid rule restricting courts' bail-granting powers, especially in appeal cases where significant delays might result in completion of sentence before appeal hearing. 
• This interpretation represents a significant evolution in jurisprudence regarding bail rights under NDPS Act, balancing procedural requirements with constitutional rights and practical considerations of judicial delays.