India’s Supreme Court Grants Mohammad Kaif Bail After Three Years in 40 kg Ganja Case

Independently written and published by Shahbaz Shah Legal Journal.

The Supreme Court of India has granted bail to Mohammad Kaif in a narcotics prosecution involving an alleged joint recovery of 40 kg of ganja. Kaif had been in custody for more than three years. The two-judge bench was particularly concerned that the three other people accused in the same alleged recovery had already obtained bail. Signed order, paragraphs 5–9.

Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed his appeal on 5 November 2026, overturning the Chhattisgarh High Court's refusal of bail. The order appeared on the Supreme Court's official website on 7 November. Order and record of proceedings · Official upload listing.

More than three years in custody

The prosecution concerns FIR No. 87 of 2023, registered at Police Station Singhoda in Mahasamund district, Chhattisgarh, under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. According to the submissions recorded by the Supreme Court, the 40 kg of cannabis was allegedly recovered from the joint possession of Kaif and three others. Kaif was arrested on 27 October 2023. Paragraphs 4–5.

The Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur rejected his bail request on 30 September 2026 in MCRC No. 8166 of 2026. Kaif then approached the Supreme Court through SLP (Criminal) No. 20560 of 2026. Leave was granted, and the case proceeded as Criminal Appeal No. 5327 of 2026. Signed order · Record of proceedings.

The State said the trial was nearly over

The State opposed bail on a specific ground: nine of the ten prosecution witnesses had already testified, leaving just one to be examined. It argued that the trial was therefore close to its conclusion. That point appears in the signed order immediately before the Court's reasons for allowing the appeal. Paragraph 6.

The bench nevertheless considered the time Kaif had already spent behind bars and the release on bail of all three co-accused. After examining the record and hearing both sides, it concluded that Kaif should also be granted bail. The High Court's order was set aside. Paragraphs 7–8.

This is the important distinction in the decision. The Court did not say that an advanced trial always requires continued detention, nor did it treat the quantity alleged in the FIR as ending the bail inquiry. It weighed the particular length of custody and the comparable position of the other accused against the State's objection. Paragraphs 5–9.

What the order means for NDPS bail arguments

For defence counsel, the order is useful as a recent example of the Supreme Court giving weight to prolonged pre-trial detention and the bail status of co-accused even where the prosecution says the trial is near completion. Those facts must be shown from the record; the outcome cannot be assumed merely because several accused face the same FIR. Paragraph 7.

The signed order does not separately analyse the requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act or lay down a general rule for commercial-quantity cases. It would be inaccurate to report this decision as removing the statutory restrictions on NDPS bail. Its reasoning is brief, focused on Kaif's circumstances, and expressly confined to the question of interim liberty before the trial concludes. Paragraphs 7 and 13.

Bail conditions and the pending trial

Kaif's release is subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court, which may impose other conditions. The Supreme Court directed him not to induce, threaten or promise anything to anyone acquainted with the case in an attempt to stop disclosure of facts. He must attend the trial diligently unless exempted. If he breaches those obligations, the trial court may cancel bail or pass appropriate orders. No fixed bail-bond amount was specified by the Supreme Court. Paragraphs 9–12.

The appeal was allowed, but the criminal case was not decided. The bench expressly said that its bail observations must not influence the merits. Kaif's guilt or innocence remains for the trial court to determine on the evidence. Paragraphs 13–15.

Case details and searchable Supreme Court order summary · Related Supreme Court analysis: actual custody and the 24-hour production rule in an NDPS case.

Sources

• Complete signed Supreme Court order and record of proceedings, six pages.
• Supreme Court of India latest-orders listing, recording Crl.A. 5327/2026, Diary No. 65819/2026 and upload on 7 November 2026.

Frequently asked questions

Why did the Supreme Court grant Mohammad Kaif bail?

It considered his detention since 27 October 2023 and the fact that all three co-accused in the alleged joint recovery had already been granted bail. These case-specific circumstances persuaded the Court to grant him bail. Order, page 2.

How much ganja was allegedly recovered?

The order records the defence submission that 40 kg of ganja was allegedly recovered from the joint possession of four people, including Mohammad Kaif. This is an allegation, not a finding of guilt. Order, page 2.

Was the NDPS trial almost complete?

The State told the Supreme Court that nine of ten prosecution witnesses had been examined and only one remained. The Court nonetheless allowed bail after considering prolonged custody and parity with the co-accused. Order, page 2.

What conditions apply to Kaif's release?

The trial court must approve his bail bonds and may impose further conditions. He must not influence witnesses and must attend trial unless exempted. Breach may lead the trial court to cancel bail. Order, page 3.

Did the Supreme Court acquit Kaif or decide the NDPS charges?

No. It granted bail and expressly stated that its observations should not be treated as findings on the merits. The prosecution and trial remain pending. Order, page 4.