Courts Kept Working By Video. The Charge Hearing Should Have Too.
A daily labourer caught with 487 grams of heroin in 2023 has spent three and a half years in jail without charges being framed. The Manipur High Court has granted him bail.
The Court held that the reverse burden under the NDPS Act arises only after the prosecution shows a prima facie case, so the first limb of the Section 37 test was not fully established, and with no criminal antecedents the second was met. He had been in custody over three and a half years, with charges unframed for almost three. Courts ran on video conferencing through the unrest, so there was no reason for the delay. Bail was granted.
- The unrest was not an excuse. Video-conferencing rules allowed charge hearings to go on.
- Section 37 is not a wall. Long custody with no trial in sight weighs heavily.
- Reverse burden needs foundation facts; registration of a case does not shift it.
- Conditions are strict: a Rs 1 lakh bond, a gazetted officer as surety, and passport surrender.
- Court
- High Court of Manipur at Imphal
- Bench
- Justice HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GUNESHWAR SHARMA
- Citation
- Bail Appln. No. 33 of 2023
- Case
- Bail Appln. No. 33 of 2023
- Decided
- 8 September 2026
- Outcome
- Bail granted on conditions
The arrest and the wait
The petitioner, a daily labourer and his family's only earner, was stopped on a highway near Bishnupur in February 2023 carrying a bag that held 487 grams of heroin. He said a man he knew from woodcutting work had asked him to deliver it.
A charge-sheet was filed in August 2023 and cognisance taken in October 2023, and his request for default bail was rejected. Almost three years later, no charge had been framed. The prosecution cited the situation in the State and his serious health condition.
The Section 37 question
The question was whether the twin test under Section 37 must be satisfied where bail is sought mainly on delay and long custody.
Following Supreme Court decisions, the Court held that the NDPS reverse burden does not arise from the mere registration of a case; the prosecution must first establish a prima facie case. The first limb was not established to its full extent, and since this was his first offence, it could not be presumed he would offend on bail.
Why the delay counted
He had been in custody for more than three and a half years. The Court noted that although violence erupted in May 2023, court work was not substantially affected, since the High Court's 2020 rules and the 2025 district court rules allow custody production and charge framing by video conference.
Nothing showed the video facility at the Special Court was not working, and there was no reason the charge hearing was not held that way. Bail was granted on a Rs 1,00,000 bond with a gazetted officer as surety, with appearance by video permitted, no travel outside Manipur without leave, and surrender of any passport.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can someone accused of carrying heroin get bail despite Section 37?
Yes. Here long custody without trial, no antecedents and a prima facie case not fully shown led to bail.
Does unrest excuse years of delay in framing charges?
Not where courts could sit by video conference, the Court held.
Seeking bail in an old NDPS case
- Build a timeline: arrest, charge-sheet, cognisance, and every hearing since.
- Show that video facilities existed and were not used.
- Argue the first Section 37 limb from the prosecution's own evidence gaps.
- Put antecedents and family circumstances on record.
Source. High Court of Manipur at Imphal, Bail Appln. No. 33 of 2023, decided 8 September 2026 by Justice HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GUNESHWAR SHARMA. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court of Manipur at Imphal and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in