Supreme Court of India· 17 August 2026
Under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, must both conditions in Section 37 be satisfied before bail is granted, or does either suffice?
UNION OF INDIA v. CHIDIEBERE KINGSLEY NAWCHARA & ORS
2026 INSC 870 · SLP (Crl) No. 14185 of 2025
Coram: Sanjay Karol; Augustine George Masih
Answer
Both. It is well established that both these conditions are required to be fulfilled and not either of them. An order which does not tell how the Court came to the conclusion that there are ‘reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty’, and which contains no discussion of the material presented warranting conviction nor of the possibility of the accused again not committing such a crime, cannot stand — the absence of recovery from the accused is by itself no answer.
Headnote
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s.37 — s.31A — Constitution of India — Art.21 — Art.142 — Bail — Foreign nationals — Sureties — Cancellation of bail — Directions —
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s.37 — Grant of bail — Twin conditions cumulative —
Held: Bail under the NDPS Act cannot rest on absence of recovery alone; the Court must record reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty and address the possibility of his again committing such a crime — both conditions, not either of them. (¶14)
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Cancellation of bail — Accused jumping bail on fake sureties —
Held further: Where the accused jumped the bail and the sureties furnished on his behalf are found to be fake, the appeal is no longer a petition against a grant of bail but a proceeding for cancellation of bail. (¶17)
Constitution of India — Art.21 — Bail to foreign nationals — Special conditions permissible —
Held further: Foreign nationals are entitled to protection under Article 21, and merely because an accused is a foreigner the right to bail cannot be circumscribed. Special conditions are permissible, but must be reasonable, proportionate and capable of compliance. (¶13)
Constitution of India — Art.142 — Stop-gap directions — Verification of sureties for foreign nationals —
Held further: In view of lack of uniformity across jurisdictions, Article 142 may be exercised to put in place stop-gap arrangements governing sureties for foreign national accused, leaving it open for the legislative wing of the Government to step in. Appeal disposed of. (¶27, 29)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 14Having understood the position in detail, let us come back to the case at hand. The respondent-accused had been arrested upon the statement of the co-accused Ms. Sumi. The offence in question was committed during the period when he had been released on bail by the Delhi High Court in relation to a similar offence. The custody period in relation to the instant FIR was around two and a half years. We have perused all the orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the bail application. The factum of proceedings before the Patiala House Court, New Delhi is conspicuously absent from the zone of consideration. All that has been said is that since there was no recovery from him, this Court’s judgment in Tofan Singh supra would apply and, as such, he is entitled to the relief of bail. Arguably, the insistence on the Union of India filing its affidavit would be in partial compliance with the requirement of the prosecuting agency/prosecutor being heard, but it does not tell us how the High Court came to the conclusion that there are ‘reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty’. It is well established that both these conditions are required to be fulfilled and not either of them. If the two-and-a-half-year incarceration of the respondent-accused in the considered view of the High Court amounted to a violation of Article 21 rights of the foreigner (as the same is undoubtedly applicable to him), the same would have functioned as increasing the level of scrutiny of the actions of the prosecuting agency. Though begging the question, we put to ourselves, should not the Court have exercised a little amount of restraint, considering both the past conduct of the accused and the quantity of contraband involved, also factoring the person responsible for the delay, if any. In the impugned order, however, neither is there any discussion of the material presented warranting conviction, nor is there any discussion about the possibility of the respondent-accused again not committing such a crime.
Paragraph 14Prohibited conduct of Professional Bail Bondsperson.—No bail bondsperson shall— i. detain, confine, or physically restrain any accused; ii. impersonate or represent themselves as a public authority; iii. solicit business within court premises or places of detention; iv. offer or give any inducement, rebate, or consideration to secure bail business; v. recommend or influence the choice of advocate/legal advisor; vi. advertise in a false, misleading, or deceptive manner or suggest governmental affiliation. vii. execute aggregate outstanding bail bonds exceeding five times the verified value of their solvency certificate or financial assets. Explanation— Any contravention of this rule shall constitute misconduct, and shall be a ground for suspension or cancellation of the license under Chapter VII, without prejudice to any criminal liability that may be incurred.
Acts & Sections
s.37 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985s.31A Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985s.8(c) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985s.21(c) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985s.27A Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985s.34 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985s.67 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Art.142 Constitution of IndiaArt.21 Constitution of IndiaArt.19(1)(d) Constitution of IndiaArt.32 Constitution of Indias.436A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.441A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.446 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.479 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s.129 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s.491 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s.45 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002s.24 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002s.43D Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967s.10(3)(e) Passports Act, 1967s.4 Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987Aadhaar Authentication for Good Governance Rules, 2020One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of UNION OF INDIA v. CHIDIEBERE KINGSLEY NAWCHARA & ORS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →