This order decides nothing about whether the offences alleged are made out. The trial continues, the trial court will fix the terms of bail, and the petitioner must co-operate with the trial. The order records no discussion of the quantity allegedly involved or of section 37 of the NDPS Act.
- Case
- Mala Paswan v. The State of West Bengal
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decision
- Bench
- Prashant Kumar Mishra; Shree Chandrashekhar
- Case numbers
- SLP (Crl.) No. 15186 of 2026; Diary No. 34414 of 2026
- Outcome
- Final order in a special leave petition: bail granted on terms to be imposed by the trial court; the petition is disposed of and the trial proceeds.
The decision
The Supreme Court has granted bail to Mala Paswan, a woman aged about 60 years who has been in jail since 1 October 2024 in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar passed the order on 6 November 2026, holding that, considering the length of her pre-trial detention, the court was inclined to release her on bail.
The release is not unconditional. Bail is to be on such terms and conditions as the trial court may impose, and it is subject to the condition that the petitioner co-operate with the trial. With that, the special leave petition stands disposed of, along with any pending applications.
The case against her
The order records that the petitioner has been in jail since 1 October 2024 in connection with FIR No. 399 of 2024, registered at Bolpur police station in Birbhum district, for offences punishable under sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. That is a period of more than two years in custody before trial.
The petition before the Supreme Court challenged the Calcutta High Court's order of 11 September 2025 in CRM (NDPS) No. 814 of 2025. An application seeking exemption from filing a certified copy of the impugned judgment accompanied the petition and stands disposed of with it. The order does not record the quantity of any substance allegedly involved, the contents of the High Court's order, or the stage the trial has reached.
What was before the court
The only question before the court at this stage was whether the petitioner, who has spent more than two years in custody awaiting trial, should be released on bail while the trial proceeds. The court was not asked to decide, and did not decide, whether the offences alleged against her are made out.
The order is short and turns on a single consideration. It does not analyse the allegations, the evidence, or the statutory framework for bail in NDPS cases, and it records no submissions from either side beyond the fact that the matter was called on for hearing.
Why the court granted bail
The court's reasoning is stated in one sentence: considering the length of pre-trial detention, it was inclined to release the petitioner on bail. By the date of the order, the petitioner had been in custody for over two years without the trial having concluded, and the court treated that length of custody as the decisive factor.
The order gives no other reason. It does not say that the case against the petitioner is weak, or that the trial is unlikely to proceed, or that any other circumstance favours release. The grant of bail rests on the custody period alone, and the conditions attached to it — terms set by the trial court and a duty to co-operate with the trial — are the safeguards the court paired with the release.
What happens next
The trial court will now fix the terms and conditions of the petitioner's release, and she will be released on those terms. She must co-operate with the trial as a condition of the bail. The special leave petition is disposed of, and any pending applications stand disposed of with it.
Nothing in the order brings the prosecution to an end. The FIR and the charges remain, the trial continues, and the question whether the offences are proved will be decided on the evidence at trial, not in this order.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students
This is a useful example of how little a bail order sometimes needs to say, and how much it leaves unsaid. The operative fact is the length of pre-trial detention: more than two years in custody before trial. Courts frequently treat prolonged custody as a ground for bail in itself, because detention before conviction is not punishment, and because a trial that has not concluded after two years raises its own questions about delay. But notice that the order does not convert that into a finding about the merits — it does not say the case is weak, and it does not acquit anyone.
Two silences in the order are worth noting. First, it records no discussion of section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes additional conditions on bail in cases involving commercial quantities. A reader must not assume from this order either that section 37 was satisfied or that it was inapplicable; the order simply does not address it, and the quantity allegedly involved is not recorded. Second, it does not record the High Court's reasons, so the order cannot be read as a comment on them. When an order is this short, the honest report states exactly what it decided and no more.
Finally, note the division of labour. The Supreme Court decided the question of release; the trial court decides the terms. Bail granted by a higher court is not bail on terms of the petitioner's choosing, and the co-operation condition means the protection can be lost if the petitioner does not comply with the trial.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- What was the single reason the court gave for granting bail, and what condition did it attach?
- What does the order leave undecided, and who fixes the terms on which the petitioner is released?
- Why does the length of pre-trial detention matter in a bail decision, and what does it not prove about the merits?
