Latest
Tuesday, October 27, 2026
Supreme Court of India
NDPS Act

1,200 Alprazolam Tablets: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused With No Antecedents After 20 Months in Custody

Published: · NyayVidhan

The Supreme Court granted bail to a man accused under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act after police allegedly recovered 1,200 alprazolam tablets from him in Durg, Chhattisgarh, a quantity the prosecution calls commercial (paras 3-4). In a brief order, the Court relied on his lack of criminal antecedents, the filing of the chargesheet, the trial being in progress and his custody since 01.02.2025 (para 7). It set aside the High Court's order and allowed his appeal.

1,200 Alprazolam Tablets: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused With No Antecedents After 20 Months in Custody

Judgment Intelligence

Bail Granted
Ved Prakash Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh
Criminal Appeal No. 4976 of 2026 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10667 of 2026)
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
16 October 2026
Bench
Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi
Relevant Acts & Sections
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 21(c), 42 and 50
Final Outcome

Appeal allowed and bail granted: the impugned order was set aside and the appellant was ordered to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the jurisdictional court deems fit; pending applications were disposed of (paras 7-8).

Source Supreme Court of India, www.sci.gov.in — order dated 16.10.2026

Key holdings

  1. No criminal antecedents, a filed chargesheet and a trial in progress were the grounds for bail (para 7).
  2. Custody since 01.02.2025, more than 20 months by the date of the order, also weighed with the Court (para 7).
  3. The pleas on Sections 42 and 50, independent witnesses and the motorcycle's ownership were recorded but not decided (paras 5, 7).
  4. The order does not discuss Section 37, though the prosecution alleges a commercial quantity (paras 4, 7).
  5. The bail terms are left to the jurisdictional court (para 7).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The appellant is an accused in FIR No. 56/2025 registered at Police Station Chhawni, District Durg, for the offence under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act (para 3). According to the prosecution, on 01.02.2025 the police received secret information that he and others were selling narcotic tablets using a Pulsar motorcycle; in the raid that followed, four boxes holding 8 strips each of alprazolam tablets, 1,200 tablets in all, were recovered from his possession (para 4). The prosecution alleges a commercial quantity (para 4). He appealed against the Chhattisgarh High Court's order of 17.10.2025 in MCRC No. 8399/2025.

Court's Findings

Having heard both sides and perused the records, the Court relied on three circumstances: the appellant has no criminal antecedents, the chargesheet has been filed, and the trial is in progress (para 7). On that basis it held that he was entitled to be released on bail (para 7). The fact that he had been in custody since 01.02.2025, more than 20 months by the date of the order, also persuaded the Court to grant the prayer (para 7). The order records, but does not decide, the appellant's pleas that Sections 42 and 50 were not complied with, that no independent witness was associated with a recovery from a public place and that he was the registered owner of the seized motorcycle, and the State's reliance on conscious possession (paras 5-7). It does not discuss Section 37 of the NDPS Act and cites no precedent.

Legal Principle

An accused charged with possessing an alleged commercial quantity of alprazolam tablets was released on bail because he had no criminal antecedents, the chargesheet had been filed, the trial was in progress and he had spent more than 20 months in custody. The order rests on these circumstances and states no wider rule (para 7).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

This is a short bail order, not a ruling on NDPS law. The Court granted bail on three plain facts: no criminal antecedents, a filed chargesheet with the trial under way, and custody since 01.02.2025 (para 7). It did not rule on the pleas about Sections 42 and 50 or independent witnesses (paras 5, 7), and it did not discuss Section 37. It can be cited for the weight of long custody and a clean record after the chargesheet, not as a reading of the twin conditions. Compare Vishwanathan (bail after nearly two years in custody, trial yet to begin) and Gulzar Ahmad Khan Pathan (bail on a completed investigation and over a year in custody).

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

NyayVidhan
Court Judgments · 2 min read
Decided: October 16, 2026 Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi
PDF
Join our WhatsApp Group
✕

Try: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt