Mohammad Kaif v. State of Chhattisgarh

Background

Background

The Supreme Court of India granted Mohammad Kaif bail in a 40 kg ganja case after more than three years in custody, noting that all three co-accused were already on bail.

FIR No. 87/2023 at Police Station Singhoda, Mahasamund, alleges joint possession of 40 kg ganja by four accused under Section 20(b) NDPS Act. The Chhattisgarh High Court refused bail on 30 September 2026. The appellant had been detained since 27 October 2023, while all three co-accused were already on bail.

Legal questions

Legal questions

Should the appellant remain in pre-trial custody in an NDPS prosecution when he has been detained for more than three years and all three co-accused have been granted bail, although the trial is advanced?

Court holding

What the Court decided

Having considered prolonged pre-trial incarceration and the grant of bail to all three co-accused, the Supreme Court held that Mohammad Kaif also deserved bail and set aside the Chhattisgarh High Court's refusal.

Final outcome

Final outcome

Criminal appeal allowed. Mohammad Kaif granted bail on bonds and further terms to the satisfaction of the trial court, with conditions against influencing witnesses and requiring attendance. The Court expressly left the trial merits undecided.

Practical effect

What the decision means in practice

Criminal appeal allowed. Mohammad Kaif granted bail on bonds and further terms to the satisfaction of the trial court, with conditions against influencing witnesses and requiring attendance. The Court expressly left the trial merits undecided.

This summary states the immediate effect recorded in the decision. The original judgment and the facts of the particular case remain controlling.

Key legal principles

Key legal principles

• More than three years of pre-trial custody was an important consideration in the Court's decision to grant bail.
• All three co-accused had already received bail, a factor the Court considered alongside prolonged detention.
• The State's objection that nine of ten prosecution witnesses had testified was considered but did not prevent bail in these circumstances.
• Bail remains conditional; the trial court may cancel it for breach, and the Supreme Court's observations do not determine the merits.