In a firm stand against lenient bail orders in narcotics cases, the Supreme Court on Monday, October 27, 2025, set aside the Bombay High Court’s decision that had granted bail to Jatin, an accused in a drug trafficking case from Akola, Maharashtra. The bench, comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan, ruled that the High Court’s order was “unsustainable” given the seriousness of the allegations and the short duration of custody.
Background
The case stems from Crime No. 532 of 2024 registered at Barshitakli Police Station in Akola district under multiple provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, including Sections 22(c), 25, 29, and 8(c).
Additionally, charges were framed under Sections 318(4), 336(3), and 338 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, making it a complex case involving both narcotic and criminal law elements.
Despite these grave accusations, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court had granted bail to Jatin on December 18, 2024, after he spent only 56 days in custody. The State of Maharashtra challenged this order in the Supreme Court, arguing that releasing the accused so early in a serious narcotics case undermined the intent of the NDPS Act, which mandates stricter scrutiny in bail matters.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, the bench appeared dissatisfied with the High Court’s reasoning. Referring to the Special Judge’s earlier order dated November 22, 2024-which had rejected bail-the apex court noted that the respondent’s specific role in the drug operation was clearly mentioned in the charge sheet and prior orders.
“The High Court failed to consider the nature and gravity of the offences,” the bench observed, adding that bail in NDPS matters cannot be granted casually. The judges also remarked that merely spending 56 days in custody does not qualify as sufficient incarceration for a charge of this magnitude.
A senior advocate representing the State pointed out that premature release of the accused could “hamper the ongoing investigation and send the wrong message in drug-related cases.” The bench seemed to agree, emphasizing that courts must strike a balance between individual liberty and societal interest, especially where drug trafficking is concerned.
Decision
After reviewing the material and hearing both sides, the Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal and cancelled Jatin’s bail. The bench categorically stated:
“The respondent did not deserve bail in a serious offence under the NDPS Act merely after custody of 56 days.”
The Court directed Jatin to surrender within four weeks before the trial court. Should he fail to do so, the concerned court has been instructed to take appropriate steps to take him into custody.
With this, the apex court reaffirmed its consistent stance that offences under the NDPS Act must be treated with utmost gravity and that bail should not become the rule in serious drug-related cases.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Jatin - Supreme Court Cancels Bail in NDPS Case
Appeal No.: Criminal Appeal No. 4614 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11043 of 2025)
Originating Case: High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench – CRABA No. 1150/2024
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan
Date of Judgment: October 27, 2025