The Supreme Court of India has ruled that there is no rigid requirement for convicts to serve half of their sentence before being granted bail at the appellate stage. The Court emphasized that if the merits of a case justify suspension of sentence and bail, an accused can be granted relief even before completing half of their term.
The decision came in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau v. Lakhwinder Singh (Criminal Appeal No. 475 of 2025), where the Apex Court upheld the bail granted to the respondent, who had been convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court had suspended his sentence and granted bail after he had served 4.5 years, citing the long pendency of his appeal.
Legal Issues and Supreme Court’s Observations
The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) challenged the High Court’s decision, arguing that bail should not be granted until the accused had served at least half of their sentence. The agency relied on the precedent set in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 731, which provided specific conditions for releasing undertrial prisoners on bail.
However, the Supreme Court, in a bench led by Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, clarified that the 1994 judgment was a one-time measure to address prolonged incarceration of undertrials and does not limit appellate courts’ discretion in granting bail. The Court held:
“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 judgment stressed that in cases where an appeal is unlikely to be heard before the convict serves a significant portion—or even the entirety—of their sentence, rigidly applying such a rule would violate the right to appeal and the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Constraints of Section 37 of the NDPS Act
The NCB also argued that Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes strict conditions for granting bail in narcotics cases, should have restricted the High Court from releasing the accused. The Court acknowledged these constraints but reiterated that they do not prevent the Appellate Court from granting bail if the accused has already undergone a substantial part of the sentence and the appeal is unlikely to be heard soon.
Referring to Dadu v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 8 SCC 437, the Supreme Court pointed out that if bail is denied solely due to Section 37, it could amount to an infringement of the convict’s constitutional rights. The Court stated:
“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.”
Final Decision
Dismissing the NCB’s appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, affirming that an appellate court has the power to grant bail based on merits, even if the convict has not served half of their sentence. The Court, however, allowed the NCB to seek cancellation of bail if the accused misuses the liberty granted.
