SC Grants Bail to Accused in NDPS Case Due to Prolonged Trial and Delay in Witness Examination

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

SC bail NDPS case
Case Details: Arunkumar Babukumar vs. Superintendent of Customs (2025) 34 Centax 433 (S.C.)  

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • J.K. Maheshwari & Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.
  • Shri G. Murugendran, Adv. & T. Harish Kumar, AOR, for the Petitioner
  • Ms. B. Sunita Rao, Adv. & Ms. Nisha Bagchi, AOR, for the Respondent

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, an accused in a case registered under Section 9A read with Sections 23, 25(A), 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, was arrested for alleged offences relating to smuggling in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The petitioner continued to remain in judicial custody for more than three and a half years. It was submitted that despite the prolonged incarceration, the trial had not concluded and summons were still issued for examination of some of the witnesses. The petitioner sought bail under Section 439 of the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that further detention was unwarranted in view of the delay in completion of trial. The matter was accordingly placed before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court held

The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, who had been in judicial custody for more than three and a half years for alleged offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, was to be released on bail. The Court observed that the trial was still pending, with summons issued for examination of some witnesses, indicating that its conclusion would take considerable time. Considering the period of incarceration and the stage of proceedings, the Court directed that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing suitable bail bonds and sureties and on such other terms and conditions as deemed fit by the Trial Court. The Special Leave Petition was accordingly allowed in favour of the petitioner.

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Stories
No Export Duty on Iron Ore Fines Below 58% Fe | CESTAT

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 31, 2026

NDPS Case | SC Allows Interim Release of Foreign Vessel

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 30, 2026

Government Revises Tariff Values For Edible Oils, Gold And Silver

Customs • News • Statutory Scope

January 29, 2026

Gold Smuggling Via Diplomatic Cargo Leads To Licence Revocation | SC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 28, 2026

Commercial Frying System Classifiable Under HSN 8438 | CESTAT

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 24, 2026

Namkeen Frying System Classifiable Under HSN 8438 | CESTAT

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 23, 2026

Customs Can’t Alter FOB Or Recompute Drawback | CESTAT

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 22, 2026

CBL Regulations Breach, Licence Revocation Set Aside, Penalty Upheld

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 21, 2026

CBIC Grants One-Time QCO Exemption For Cross Recessed Screws

Customs • News • Statutory Scope

January 20, 2026

RoSCTL Benefits Extended To Postal Exports Via E-Entry

Customs • News • Statutory Scope

January 19, 2026