The Supreme Court held that there cannot be a rule of thumb that a convict cannot be released on bail pending an appeal against conviction unless he has undergone half of the substantive sentence.

The Apex Court was considering an appeal against an order granting relief of suspension of sentence and bail to the respondent/accused pending an appeal against the conviction.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan asserted, “In the case of fixed-term sentences, if the Courts start adopting a rigid approach, in a large number of cases, till the appeal reaches the stage of the final hearing, the accused would undergo the entire sentence. This will be a violation of the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution. Moreover, it will defeat the right of appeal.”

Additional Solicitor General Suryaprakash V. Raju represented the Appellant while AOR Akshay Verma represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The respondent was convicted for an offence punishable under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The substantive sentence of the respondent is 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. In appeal, the High Court noted that the respondent had undergone incarceration for a period of 4 ½ years out of the fixed term sentence of 10 years. As the appeal was not likely to be heard before the completion of the sentence, the High Court granted relief of suspension of sentence and bail to the respondent.

Reasoning

Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee representing Undertrial Prisoners vs. Union of India & Ors. (1994) which was relied upon by the ASG, the Bench explained that while dealing with an extraordinary situation arising out of the long incarceration of undertrial prisoners, the Court therein had directed that in certain cases, the prisoners shall be released on bail after they complete a certain period of imprisonment. “The directions issued were by way of a one-time measure. The judgment of this Court cannot be read to mean that the powers of the Court to grant bail have been curtailed”, the Bench clarified.

The Bench further held, “Therefore, in our view, if a case is made out for the grant of suspension of sentence and/or bail in deserving cases on merits, the Court is not powerless to grant relief of suspension of sentence and bail pending an appeal, even if an accused has not undergone half of the sentence.”

Coming to the provisions of the NDPS Act, the Court explained that the Appellate Court is bound by constraints of Section 37 of the NDPS Act while considering the prayer for the grant of bail during the pendency of an appeal. However, if, in the facts of the case, an accused has undergone a substantial part of the substantive sentence and, considering the pendency of criminal appeals, his appeal is not likely to be heard before the accused undergoes the entire sentence, the Appellate Court can exercise the power of releasing the accused on bail pending the appeal. “If the relief of bail is denied in such a factual situation only on the grounds of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, it will amount to the violation of the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India”, it added.

On the facts of the case, the Bench noticed that the appeal preferred by the respondent is not likely to be heard before he undergoes the entire sentence and he has already undergone a substantial part of his 10-year sentence. Thus, finding no reason to interfere with the impugned order, the Bench dismissed the Appeal and ordered, “However, if the respondent misuses the liberty granted to him under the impugned order, the appellant can always apply for cancellation of bail.”

Cause Title: Narcotic Control Bureau v. Lakhwinder Singh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 190)

Appearance:

Appellant: Additional Solicitor General Suryaprakash V. Raju, Advocates Sairica Raju, Rajan Kr. Chourasia, Annam Venkatesh, AOR Arvind Kumar Sharma

Respondent: AOR Akshay Verma, Advocates Sushma Verma, Abhinav Singh

Click here to read/download Judgment


Supreme CourtJustice Abhay S OkaJustice Ujjal BhuyanNarcotic Psychotropic Substances ActNarcotics Control BureauBail Application

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.