A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The present judgment of the Supreme Court in The State of Jharkhand v. Sunny Kumar @ Sunny Kumar Sao, Criminal Appeal No. 538 of 2025, examines the propriety of High Court bail granted in an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) specifically an offence punishable under Section 18 where the accused, after obtaining bail, was subsequently arrested in another NDPS case. The Supreme Court, on an appeal filed by the State, set aside the High Court’s bail order dated 24.11.2022 and directed that the accused be taken into custody in relation to Case No. 231 of 2022, while simultaneously directing the trial court to expedite trial proceedings, preferably within four months.

The Court’s reasoning rests on the nature of NDPS offences and the aggravating factor of the accused’s subsequent arrest in a similar narcotics offence while released on bail. The balance drawn by the Court weighs the danger of recidivism and the statutory scheme of NDPS against the bail entitlement; while the respondent contended recovery was of intermediate quantity and Section 37’s rigors were not attracted, the subsequent conduct (arrest in similar offence) informed the Court’s decision to withdraw liberty and remand. The order underscores the Supreme Court’s supervisory role in protective oversight of bail in narcotics matters and stresses expeditious trial as a companion directive to custodial remand.

Keywords: NDPS Act, Section 18, bail, recidivism, custodial remand, Section 37, expedited trial

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The appeal arises from a challenge by the State to a High Court order dated 24.11.2022 which had granted bail to the respondent-accused in Case No. 231 of 2022 (Police Station Sadar, District Chatra) for offence under Section 18 of the NDPS Act. The State obtained leave to appeal to the Supreme Court arguing that circumstances subsequent to the High Court’s order warranted reconsideration of bail: after his release, the respondent allegedly became involved in another NDPS offence and was arrested on 12.07.2023.

The respondent contested the appeal by stressing the quantity of recovered contraband in the primary case was intermediate (not commercial), and therefore the tougher consequences associated with Section 37 (which governs certain restrictions and sentencing paradigms under NDPS) would not be attracted; additionally, the respondent pointed out that the State’s remedy before the Supreme Court was an attack on a bail order and not a cancellation for breach of bail conditions. The Supreme Court framed the issue narrowly: whether, in view of the nature of the offence and the accused’s subsequent arrest in a similar NDPS case while on bail, the High Court’s grant of bail should be sustained.

The Court recognised the twin imperatives in narcotics jurisprudence protection of society and the integrity of trial and balanced them against individual liberty, ultimately exercising supervisory power to set aside the bail order and remand the accused while directing speedy trial supervision.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The respondent was originally arrested and charged in Case No. 231 of 2022 under Section 18 of the NDPS Act. The High Court of Jharkhand, by its order dated 24.11.2022 in B.A. No. 9276 of 2022, granted bail to the respondent. After release on bail, the respondent was implicated in a subsequent NDPS offence and arrested on 12.07.2023 in that later-registered case. Meanwhile, trial in the original Case No. 231 of 2022 had commenced and remained incomplete, with the record indicating that only three witnesses were left to be examined at the stage when the State approached the Supreme Court. The State challenged the High Court’s bail grant before the Supreme Court by way of criminal appeal.

The respondent’s counsel emphasised that the first case involved recovery of contraband of intermediate quantity and argued that the stringent consequences under Section 37 would not apply; she further acknowledged that the current proceedings before the trial court were extant and that the respondent was already under arrest in the subsequent NDPS case. The Supreme Court took note of the sequence bail granted, subsequent involvement in narcotics offence, fresh arrest and treated the subsequent conduct as a material factor bearing upon the propriety of continuing bail in the earlier case.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the High Court’s grant of bail in a case under Section 18 of the NDPS Act should be sustained where, after release, the accused is arrested in a subsequent similar NDPS offence.

2. Whether the intermediate quantity of seized contraband in the original case and the alleged inapplicability of Section 37’s rigours precludes the State from successfully challenging a bail order when other incriminating conduct occurs post-release.

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The State submitted that the High Court’s bail order should be reviewed because subsequent events namely the accused’s involvement in another NDPS offence and arrest on 12.07.2023 demonstrate a risk of recidivism and undermine the rationale for bail, thereby justifying custodial remand.

2. The State further urged that the nature of offences under the NDPS Act calls for strict judicial scrutiny when liberty is granted, and the accused’s conduct post-bail materially affected the balance of convenience and public interest that originally supported bail.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Counsel for the respondent argued that the recovered contraband in the primary case was of intermediate quantity and therefore the special rigours attaching to Section 37 are not applicable; on that basis bail was properly granted by the High Court.

2. It was also pointed out that the present appeal challenges the High Court’s order granting bail and is not an application for cancellation of bail predicated on breach of conditions; thus the procedural posture is different from a straight cancellation petition. The respondent conceded that he was presently under arrest in another NDPS case.

H) JUDGMENT 

The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal and set aside the High Court’s bail order dated 24.11.2022. The Court’s reasoning is compact and fact-sensitive: it placed weight on the nature of NDPS offences and, critically, on the subsequent arrest of the respondent in a similar narcotics offence after being released on bail. The Court observed that the respondent’s later conduct arrest for a narcotics offence registered after the primary case is a significant factor undermining the propriety of continued bail in the earlier case.

The bench therefore concluded that custodial remand was appropriate in the circumstances and directed that the respondent be taken into custody in connection with Case No. 231 of 2022. At the same time the Court issued a supervisory direction to the trial court to expedite trial and to conclude proceedings preferably within four months from receipt of the judgment’s copy.

The order therefore achieves two objectives: it removes the protective umbrella of bail given earlier because of the accused’s demonstrated propensity to re-offend, and it safeguards the accused’s procedural rights by ordering speedy conclusion of trial. The appeal was accordingly allowed and pending applications closed.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The decisive legal proposition is that bail granted in NDPS cases may be set aside where subsequent material developments particularly the accused’s involvement in another narcotics offence leading to arrest indicate a risk to public safety and the integrity of the trial process. The Court’s ratio anchors on the interplay between the statutory scheme of NDPS offences and post-release conduct: even where the quantity seized in the original case may be intermediate, subsequent criminal involvement in a similar offence while on bail is a material change in circumstances sufficient to justify withdrawal of liberty previously accorded by a High Court.

The Court thus applied a fact-sensitive standard: liberty can be revisited if later events reveal recidivist conduct or an undermining of the bail’s rationale. The supervisory power of this Court to set aside interlocutory orders of High Courts in criminal matters where relevant facts change is affirmed and applied.

b. OBITER DICTA

The judgment includes observations that emphasize two practical principles: first, NDPS offences are of a nature that judicial caution is warranted before granting bail; second, expeditious trial should accompany custodial remands to prevent undue delay and to protect accused’s rights. While not elaborated at length, the Court’s directions implicitly convey that bail is not an immutable indulgence and must yield where subsequent conduct shows the accused remains a threat to public order or investigation. The Court’s direction for preferential four-month disposal signals an expectation of procedural diligence in narcotics trials but does not lay down strict jurisdictional rules beyond the facts at hand.

c. GUIDELINES

1. Where an accused released on bail in an NDPS case is subsequently arrested in another similar NDPS offence, courts should treat such subsequent arrest as a material change of circumstances relevant to bail continuation.

2. High Courts’ bail orders in narcotics matters remain subject to supervisory review by this Court where post-bail conduct undermines the justification for bail.

3. When custodial remand is ordered after setting aside bail, trial courts should be directed to expedite the trial to protect the accused’s right to speedy trial; in this case the Supreme Court recommended conclusion preferably within four months.

4. The nature and sequence of events must be weighed quantity of contraband, applicable statutory consequences (such as the applicability of Section 37), and post-release conduct before arriving at a decision on bail continuation.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces a cautious approach to bail in NDPS matters, especially where later developments demonstrate recidivism. It demonstrates the Court’s willingness to revisit and set aside High Court bail grants when post-order conduct materially changes the circumstances bearing on liberty. The combined approach ordering custody while mandating an expedited trial seeks to reconcile public interest and investigatory integrity with the accused’s procedural rights.

Practically, the decision serves as a precedent-focused reminder that bail in special-statute offences carries conditionality that continues beyond the formal order; subsequent arrests for similar offences are potent indicia for removal of bail. The Court’s direction for swift trial disposal is a salutary administrative command aimed at limiting prolonged pre-trial uncertainty. Overall, the judgment is tightly reasoned on the facts presented and illustrates the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to protect the interests of justice in narcotics litigation.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. The State of Jharkhand v. Sunny Kumar @ Sunny Kumar Sao, Criminal Appeal No. 538 of 2025, [2025] 2 S.C.R. 619 : 2025 INSC 153.

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (provisions discussed: Section 18; reference to Section 37).