The Supreme Court recently set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s order granting bail to a man accused of transporting 731 kg of ganja, holding that courts cannot dilute the stringent statutory constraints on bail in commercial-quantity NDPS cases.
The bench of Justices Manmohan and N.V. Anjaria directed accused Namdeo Ashruba Nakade to surrender within two weeks, observing that the High Court had failed to record the mandatory satisfaction required under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
The case concerns a seizure made on 7 November 2023, when enforcement agencies intercepted a lorry allegedly driven and owned by Nakade. Officials recovered 731.075 kilograms of ganja valued at Rs. 2.91 crore from compartments concealed beneath the vehicle’s trailer. The quantity, court noted, was well above the threshold for commercial-quantity offences, which attract a minimum sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and can extend up to twenty years.
The High Court had granted bail in March 2025 on the reasoning that the investigation stood completed with the filing of the chargesheet in May 2024, and that the trial before the special court showed no signs of commencing soon. It also relied on an affidavit filed by the accused’s elder brother, who was a Sepoy in the Indian Army, and assured the court that he would ensure the accused’s presence during trial. The brother had appeared online during the bail hearing and submitted identification documents to support his undertaking.
Challenging the order, Additional Solicitor General S.D. Sanjay, appearing for the Union of India, argued that the High Court had completely overlooked the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. He submitted that in offences involving commercial quantities, bail can be granted only if the court is satisfied that the accused is not guilty and will not commit an offence on release which are the findings that are mandatory and must be recorded explicitly. To support this contention, the Union relied on the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, where court reiterated that the grant of bail under the NDPS Act is an exception and negation of bail is the rule.
Appearing for the accused, counsel argued that Nakade had already spent nearly two years in custody without trial and that further incarceration pending a delayed trial would be unjust. The counsel stressed that the brother’s undertaking, coupled with electronic location-sharing with the Investigating Officer, would secure the accused’s presence.
The Supreme Court, however, held that such considerations cannot override statutory requirements. The judges underscored the severity of the narcotics problem, referring to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime’s 2025 World Drug Report, which recorded that 316 million people had used drugs in the preceding year. Court also cited medical research highlighting the impact of substance abuse on India’s youth, and reiterated its own observations in Ankush Vipan Kapoor v. NIA, which linked drug trafficking to public health concerns and national security.
In this case, court said, the allegations indicate involvement in organised drug trafficking. The fabrication of hidden cavities beneath the trailer for concealing the contraband, it observed, demonstrated pre-planned and sophisticated concealment. Given the seriousness of the offence and the statutory minimum sentence, court held that the period of custody, about one year and four months, could not be considered excessive.
Court also dismissed the reliance on the brother’s undertaking as legally irrelevant, noting that Indian law does not permit the burden of an accused’s absconding to fall upon a family member.
Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court allowed the Union’s appeal and directed Nakade to surrender within two weeks.
Case Title: Union of India vs. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade
Judgment Date: November 7, 2025
Bench: Justices Manmohan and N V Anjaria
