Bail Overturned: Supreme Court Revokes Bail in NDPS Case Citing Repeat Offence, Emphasizing Seriousness of Drug Crimes and Need for Speedy Trial

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Case Name: THE STATE OF JHARKHAND vs. SUNNY KUMAR @ SUNNY KUMAR SAO.

Citation: 2025 INSC 153 (Reportable)

Case Overview

This criminal appeal arises from a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the State of Jharkhand, challenging the High Court's order that granted bail to the respondent, Sunny Kumar. The case is related to an offense under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). The Supreme Court's ruling set aside the High Court's bail order, directing Sunny Kumar to be taken back into custody.

Background

Case No. 231 of 2022 was registered at Police Station-Sadar, District-Chatra, Jharkhand. Sunny Kumar was accused of violating Section 18 of the NDPS Act. The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi granted bail to Sunny Kumar on 24.11.2022. Subsequently, Sunny Kumar was arrested on 12.07.2023 in another case under the NDPS Act. This re-arrest led the State of Jharkhand to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Legal Arguments

Appellant (State of Jharkhand)

The State of Jharkhand argued that Sunny Kumar’s subsequent arrest in another NDPS case, after being granted bail in the first case, was a significant factor that warranted revoking his bail. Additionally, the State highlighted that the trial had already commenced and only three witnesses remained, suggesting that it was nearing completion.

Respondent (Sunny Kumar)

Sunny Kumar’s counsel argued that the recovered contraband was of an intermediate quantity, not a commercial quantity. Therefore, the strict conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act should not apply. The counsel also contended that the appeal was against the initial grant of bail, not a cancellation due to breach of bail conditions. However, the respondent’s counsel conceded that Sunny Kumar was under arrest in another NDPS case.

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail. The Court directed that Sunny Kumar be taken into custody concerning the original case, Case No. 231 of 2022. Furthermore, the Trial Court was instructed to expedite the trial and conclude it, preferably within four months from the receipt of the judgment.

Rationale

  1. The Supreme Court considered the submissions of the counsels of both parties.
  2. The Court took into account the nature of the offense under the NDPS Act.
  3. The fact that the respondent-accused was arrested in a similar offense under the NDPS Act after being released on bail was a major factor for setting aside the High Court's order.

Excerpt

"...the respondent-accused was involved in another case under the NDPS Act, and was also arrested for the same on 12.07.2023."

"...the recovery of the alleged contraband was not of commercial quantity and it was only of an intermediate quantity, and therefore, the rigors of Section-37 would not be applicable to the instant case."

"Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the nature of the offence as also the fact that the respondent-accused has been arrested in a similar offence under the NDPS Act, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court."

"the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same in accordance with law, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment."

Points to Remember

  1. The case revolves around the granting of bail in cases related to the NDPS Act.
  2. The NDPS Act prohibits and regulates the production, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, storage, and consumption of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
  3. Section 18 of the NDPS Act is the primary offense in this case, and Section 37 relates to bail conditions.
  4. The distinction between "intermediate quantity" and "commercial quantity" is critical in determining bail conditions.
  5. The Supreme Court has the authority to overturn the High Court's decision.
  6. The subsequent arrest of an accused in another similar NDPS case can be a ground for revoking bail.
  7. The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the seriousness with which the judiciary treats NDPS Act offenses and the possibility of setting aside bail in cases of repeat offenders.
  8. The judgment also highlights the significance of speedy trials in criminal cases.
  9. "Leave granted" means the Supreme Court permits to hear the matter on appeal.
  10. A "reportable judgment" has legal significance and can be used as a precedent in future cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Jharkhand v. Sunny Kumar underscores the seriousness with which the judiciary views offenses under the NDPS Act, especially when they involve repeat offenders. The case emphasizes that a subsequent arrest for a similar offense under the NDPS Act is a valid ground for setting aside bail, even if it is not a violation of bail conditions. The court has clearly balanced the personal liberty of an individual and the larger societal interest by prioritizing the need to prevent repeat offenses while maintaining law and order. The directive to expedite the trial demonstrates the commitment to ensuring a speedy resolution in such cases. This judgment acts as a precedent for similar cases involving NDPS Act violations.

Popular posts from this blog

SARFAESI Act and Civil Court Jurisdiction: A Landmark Judgment

Court: Supreme Court of India Case Name: Central Bank Of India vs. Smt. Prabha Jain Citation: 2025 INSC 95  (Reportable) Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India addressed a series of civil appeals concerning the interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the jurisdiction of civil courts. The central issue was whether civil courts can adjudicate on the validity of sale deeds and mortgage deeds when the properties are under SARFAESI Act proceedings. This was particularly in the context where a third party, not the borrower, claimed an independent ownership right over the secured asset. The lead case involved Smt. Prabha Jain, who sought to reclaim her share of family land, arguing that her brother-in-law illegally sold the land which was later mortgaged to the Central Bank of India. The bank argued that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAE...
Read more

Navigating Partnership Disputes in Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Minimal Judicial Intervention, Tasking Arbitral Tribunal to Determine Privity Amidst Partner Succession and a Substitute Presiding Arbitrator Appointment

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay recently addressed a contentious arbitration petition,  2025:BHC-AS:11467 , arising from a dispute concerning the exit of the Petitioner, Darshan Mahendra Nibjya, from a partnership firm where Respondent No. 2, Jayantilal Tarachand Oswal & Ors., subsequently became a partner.  The core legal question revolved around the maintainability of the arbitration against Respondent No. 2, who contended that no arbitration agreement existed between him and the Petitioner. This issue came before the Court in the context of an application for the appointment of a substitute presiding arbitrator, necessitated by the resignation of the previously appointed arbitrator following allegations from Respondent No. 2. The genesis of the matter lies in the inability of the arbitrators nominated by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 to agree on a presiding arbitrator, leading to the initial appointment by a Learned Single Judge, an order upheld by the Sup...
Read more

Upholding Governmental Prerogative to Rectify Flawed Recruitment: Supreme Court Settles Assam Forest Constable Appointment Saga

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: STATE OF ASSAM vs. ARABINDA RABHA. Citation: 2025 INSC 334 (Reportable) Background of the Disputed Recruitment The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force, Assam, initiated recruitment for 104 Constable posts in 2014. The selection process involved a physical endurance test followed by interviews, notably without a written examination. A select list was prepared and submitted for government approval. Intervention and Cancellation by the Successor Government A new political regime assumed power in Assam in May 2016. The incumbent PCCF subsequently submitted a note highlighting serious anomalies in the selection process, including disproportionate district-wise representation and reservation policy violations. Based on this note, the Government cancelled the select list in July 2016 without any further inquiry. A fresh advertisement for 132 constable posts was issued in April 2017. High Court's Scrutiny a...
Read more