Case Law Details
Barnali Bag Vs Union of India (Supreme Court of India)
The appellant was booked pursuant to F.No. SI(VII)-169/2025 (AIU) dated 25.07.2025 registered with Police Station Customs, Air Intelligence Unit, Kolkata, for offences punishable under Section 8 read with Sections 20(b)(ii)(B), 23 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Before the Calcutta High Court, the appellant sought regular bail, submitting that 4,013 grams of alleged contraband ganja had been recovered from her possession, that she was innocent, had been unknowingly involved in the alleged offence, and had no knowledge of the recovered material. The Customs Authority opposed the bail application. The High Court, taking into account similar cases involving the use of Calcutta Airport as a corridor for importing contraband from foreign countries and the foundational facts of the case, declined to grant bail irrespective of whether the quantity was intermediate or commercial and rejected CRM (NDPS) No. 1292 of 2025.
Read HC Judgment in this case: NDPS Bail Rejected Considering Foundational Facts: Calcutta HC
The appellant challenged the High Court’s order before the Supreme Court. Leave was granted, and after issuing notice and hearing both sides, the Supreme Court considered the appellant’s submissions that she was a woman in custody since 26.07.2025, three co-accused had already been granted bail by the High Court, she was similarly placed and entitled to bail on the principle of parity, and that charges had not yet been framed, resulting in inevitable delay in conclusion of the proceedings. The respondent opposed the appeal, contending that 4,013 grams of ganja had been recovered from the appellant’s bag and that the grant of bail to co-accused did not justify similar relief.
Considering the facts on record, the Supreme Court held that a case for bail was made out. It allowed the appeal, directed that the appellant be produced before the concerned Trial Court and be released on bail subject to conditions considered appropriate by the Trial Court to secure her presence in the proceedings. The Supreme Court further directed the appellant to extend complete cooperation during the trial, not misuse her liberty, and not influence witnesses or tamper with the material on record, observing that any infraction of these conditions could entail cancellation of bail. Consequently, the High Court’s order rejecting bail stood displaced to the extent the Supreme Court granted bail and allowed the criminal appeal.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
Leave granted.
This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 02.02.2026 passed by the High Court of Calcutta at Calcutta in CRM (NDPS) No.1292 of 2025.
The appellant herein has been booked for the crime registered pursuant to F.No. SI(VII)-169/2025(AIU) dated 25.07.2025 lodged with Police Station Customs, Air Intelligence Unit, Kolkata, with respect to offences punishable under Section 8 read with Sections 20(b)(ii) (B)/23/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
An application seeking regular bail having been rejected by the High Court vide impugned order dated 02.02.2026, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.
By order dated 26.02.2026, the following order was passed by this Court:
“Issue notice to the respondent, returnable on 24.03.2026.
Learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice.”
We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant herein is a lady, who has been in jail since 26.07.2025; that three other co-accused were granted the relief of bail by the High Court. The appellant herein although similarly placed with the other co-accused has been denied the relief of bail. In the circumstances, simply on the application of the principle of parity, this Court may set aside the impugned order and the appellant herein may also be granted the relief of bail subject to the terms and conditions that may be imposed.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant further submitted that the charges are yet to be framed and there would inevitably be delay in the conclusion of the proceedings.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/Union of India with reference to the counter affidavit contended that this is a serious case where 4013 grams of ganja was recovered from the appellant’s bag; it may be that the other co-accused have been granted bail but that is no reason to grant a similar relief to the appellant herein. She therefore, submitted that there is no merit in this appeal and the same may be dismissed.
Considering the facts on record, in our view, the case for bail is made out.
We, therefore, allow this appeal and direct as under:
“The appellant shall be produced before the concerned Trial Court as early as possible and the Trial Court shall release her on bail, subject to such conditions as it may deem appropriate to impose to ensure her presence in the proceedings arising out of F.No. SI(VII)-169/2025 (AIU) dated 25.07.2025 mentioned above.”
It is directed that the appellant shall extend complete cooperation in the ensuing trial.
The appellant shall not misuse her liberty and shall not in any way influence the witnesses or tamper with the material on record.
Any infraction of the conditions may entail cancellation of bail granted to the appellant.
With the aforesaid directions, the criminal appeal is allowed.
Leave granted.
The Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.
Author Bio
