In a ruling delivered on 28 September 2026, the Delhi High Court held that the strict bail conditions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act cannot be used to keep an accused person in jail indefinitely before trial. The court said that prolonged pre-trial detention is a direct violation of the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Justice Amit Bansal made the observation while granting regular bail to three men booked in a 2024 drug case registered at Police Station Sonia Vihar in Delhi. The judgment, titled Rajiv Kumar & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi (BAIL APPLN. 1913/2026 and connected matters), has serious implications for thousands of undertrial prisoners across India who are held under special statutes with stringent bail provisions.

The three applicants are Prem Chand, Pramod Kumar, and Rajiv Kumar. They were arrested in April 2024 in connection with the recovery of Alprazolam tablets, a psychotropic substance. Prem Chand and Pramod Kumar have been in custody since 16 April 2024. Rajiv Kumar has been in custody since 17 April 2024.

The NDPS Act and Section 37: What Is at Stake?

The NDPS Act is India’s primary law against drug trafficking. Section 37 of the Act makes it extremely difficult for a court to grant bail when the alleged quantity of contraband is "commercial" — meaning above a legally defined threshold. In such cases, the court must be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and will not commit an offence while on bail.

The phrase "commercial quantity" is key. Under the NDPS Act, the quantity of the seized drug decides how severe the punishment is and how tough the bail rules are. The prosecution told the court that the FSL report confirmed the seized substance to be Alprazolam, a Schedule H drug. It argued that the amounts involved qualified as commercial quantity, so the strict bail bar under Section 37 applied.

But the defence argued that the investigation had been complete for over a year. The charge sheet was filed on 1 October 2024. Charges were framed on 10 October 2025. Yet, no witnesses have been examined till now.

Why the Court Said Long Pre-Trial Detention Cannot Continue

Justice Bansal’s order does not deny that commercial quantities were recovered. Instead, it draws a line between the seriousness of the offence and the constitutional limits on how long the State can keep a person in jail without a trial.

The court noted that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot defeat the protections under Article 21. Prolonged incarceration at the pre-trial stage, even in cases under special statutes, is violative of the right to life and liberty, the order says.

The judgment relies on a clear line of Supreme Court precedents. It cites Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 18 SCC 166, Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2023 SCC OnLine SC 918, and Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109. It also refers to a more recent judgment, State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, delivered on 24 April 2026 in SLP (Crl.) No. 5020/2026.

In Rabi Prakash, the Supreme Court dealt with an accused who had spent three and a half years in custody, had no criminal antecedents, and saw only one out of nineteen witnesses examined. The Supreme Court held that the embargo under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act may be dispensed with in cases of prolonged incarceration.

The three applicants in this case had been in custody since April 2024. That is over two years and five months by the date of the order. The court found that the trial was nowhere near completion and there was no likelihood of it finishing within a short period. Keeping them in jail any longer, the court said, would violate their fundamental rights.

What the Prosecution Argued — and What the Court Weighed

The prosecution opposed bail on several grounds. It said there was clear evidence implicating all three men. It said the FSL report confirmed the substance was Alprazolam. It described the men as part of an organised inter-State drug syndicate. On the issue of recovery, the prosecution relied on a trap laid on 16 April 2024, when Prem Chand and Pramod Kumar were apprehended and 59.238 kg of Alprazolam 0.5 mg tablets were allegedly seized from them.

The defence raised serious procedural points. Counsel for Pramod Kumar and Prem Chand argued that Section 50 of the NDPS Act had not been complied with. They said there were no independent witnesses present at the time of the alleged recovery. They also said the recovery was neither videographed nor photographed — a gap that could matter at trial.

For Rajiv Kumar, Senior Advocate Amit Chadha argued that his client was working as an Area Sales Manager in Leeford Healthcare Private Limited. No recovery was made from Rajiv Kumar. He was arrested solely on the basis of disclosure statements made by co-accused. The defence said no independent evidence connected him to the alleged contraband.

The court also noted that the two other co-accused in the case, Rahul Pal and Jagdeep, had already been granted bail. Rahul Pal got bail from the High Court on 26 March 2025 in BAIL APPLN. 30/2025. Jagdeep got bail from the Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, on 31 July 2024. Both were the source of the initial recovery of 2,40,000 Alprazolam tablets. If those at the origin of the recovery could get bail, the court reasoned, keeping the downstream accused in custody indefinitely made little sense.

What This Means for Ordinary Undertrials

This judgment is not about letting drug offenders walk free. It is about the difference between a trial and an indefinite waiting period. Most people in Indian jails are undertrials — people whose guilt has not been proven. For them, the promise of Article 21 is not an abstraction. It is the difference between seeing a lawyer and waiting for a witness who never turns up.

The ruling comes at a time when the Supreme Court has repeatedly flagged the problem of long pre-trial detention. The cases cited by Justice Bansal are not exceptions. They are a pattern. Courts are now saying, in one order after another, that the State cannot use strict bail law as a substitute for a functioning trial.

The court did not make light of the quantity recovered. It accepted that commercial quantity attracts Section 37. But it held that the constitutional protections under Article 21 remain alive even in NDPS cases. That is the takeaway.

Prolonged incarceration at the pre-trial stage, even in cases under special statutes containing stringent bail conditions, would be violative of the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. — Delhi High Court, in Rajiv Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi

For the three men, the order means a chance to defend themselves from outside jail. For the wider public, it is a reminder that bail law is not just about the accused. It is about how long the legal system makes ordinary people wait for a verdict.