Calcutta HC Grants Interim Bail to NDPS Accused on Advanced Pregnancy Ground, Sets Strict Conditions Despite Rs 63 Crore Drug Seizure
Justice Tirthankar Ghosh released an NDPS accused on interim bail until 21 September 2026, holding that advanced pregnancy and foetal welfare warranted temporary relief despite Section 37's twin conditions.
The High Court at Calcutta on 16 July 2026 granted interim bail to Shaista Khan, an accused in a Narcotics Control Bureau case involving seizures valued at approximately Rs 63 crores, solely on the ground that she is in an advanced stage of pregnancy with an expected delivery date of 13 August 2026. Justice Tirthankar Ghosh, sitting singly, acknowledged the gravity of the offences charged under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 21(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, but held that the health of the mother, the risk to the unborn child, the availability of obstetric facilities in jail, and the advanced stage of pregnancy collectively warranted temporary release. The interim bail operates until 21 September 2026, subject to strict conditions imposed by the Special Court.
The NDPS Case and Arrest
Shaista Khan was arrested on 4 April 2026 in connection with NCB Crime No. 06/NCB/KOL/2026, registered on 3 April 2026. At the time of the bail hearing, she had been in custody for approximately 100 days.
The NCB detailed three separate seizure locations in its written notes. At the petitioner's residence at 16/C, 1st Floor, Bindubasini Street, Mominpur, Kolkata, a search yielded 70 grams of ganja, 239 grams of MDMA tablets, 8 grams of cocaine, 118 LSD blots, 9 vials of liquid LSD, and Rs 4,35,000 in cash. A second premises at Rajab Ali Lane, Iqbalpur, Kolkata produced 5 grams of ganja and 31 MDMA tablets. The most significant recovery came from a flat at Hiland Greens Phase I, Batanagar, where, following a voluntary disclosure by the petitioner, NCB teams found 2.441 kg ganja, approximately 1.505 kg MDMA tablets, 184 grams of cocaine, 760 grams of amphetamine, 263 LSD blot papers, 2.016 kg liquid LSD, and 1,770 tramadol capsules.
The NCB placed on record that the petitioner's husband had been detained in the Philippines in connection with similar offences, and that call records showed continuous contact between the petitioner and others associated with what the agency described as an organised criminal network. The contraband, the NCB urged, was available only through international import by surreptitious means, requiring coordination with customs, coastal, police, courier, airline and passport authorities, as well as Interpol and overseas agencies.
The Sole Ground: Pregnancy
Senior Advocate Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, appearing for the petitioner, expressly confined the bail application to one ground — the petitioner's advanced pregnancy. He relied on medical documents that corroborated the expected delivery date. The NCB's own report, submitted on 7 July 2026, also supported the petitioner's claim. The NCB's response on the medical aspect was that the petitioner was being examined at the Gynaecology and Maternity Outpatient Department of S.S.K.M. Hospital, with follow-up visits from 8 May 2026 to 3 July 2026, that there was no complaint regarding her health, and that regular medication was being administered under supervision of the Alipore Correctional Home Hospital.
The petitioner's counsel placed before the court a series of precedents. He cited the Supreme Court's decision in Kamana Naykar alias Kamana Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 942, where the Supreme Court had released a pregnant accused facing abetment of suicide charges on bail. He also cited the order in CRM (DB) No. 1676 of 2023 in the matter of Payel Mukherjee, where a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court had released an applicant in similar circumstances on humanitarian grounds. The Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment in Amanjot Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2023:PHHC:157283, was also placed on record. That court had held, in a commercial-quantity NDPS case, that pregnancy is a special circumstance in which “the gravity of the offence for the time being is liable to be ignored.”
The Bombay High Court's judgment in Alfiya Faisal Shaikh v. Union of India was cited for the proposition that a prisoner is entitled to dignity, and that giving birth in prison may have consequences not only to the mother but also to the child. The Supreme Court's directions in R.D. Upadhyay v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2007) 15 SCC 337, on the rights of children born to women in custody and the obligation to arrange for delivery outside prison wherever possible, were also placed before the court.
The NCB's Resistance and the Section 37 Barrier
Mr. Arun Kumar Maiti, appearing for the NCB, pressed the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Section 37 requires, in cases involving commercial quantities, that the court be satisfied both that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The NCB relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo & Anr. (arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 16021/2023), which had re-affirmed that a liberal approach ignoring Section 37's mandate is impermissible and that recording a finding under Section 37 is a sine qua non for granting bail.
The NCB also relied on State of U.P. v. Gayatri Prasad Prajapati (SLP (Crl.) No. 4337/2020), where the Supreme Court had set aside a High Court order granting interim bail on medical grounds, finding that the court had not recorded satisfaction that in-custody treatment was inadequate.
The Gauhati High Court's judgment in Chonghoi Haokip v. Union of India was cited to show that pregnancy, though relevant, must be examined against the nature of the offence, and that when the court finds no scope for bail at that stage, pregnancy alone need not play a major role.
The NCB argued that the investigation was still in progress, that interrogation of the petitioner had been required only after the bail application was filed, and that releasing the petitioner at this stage would jeopardise the investigation. The NCB pointed out that the investigating agency still had approximately 80 days remaining within the statutory investigation period to obtain materials from overseas organisations.
In response, Mr. Chatterjee relied on Vijay Singh v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5304, where the Supreme Court had observed that Article 21 over-rides Section 37 of the NDPS Act when there is undue delay in trial for no fault of the accused, and that an accused cannot be kept in jail for an indefinite period.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Tirthankar Ghosh accepted that the seizures reflected the gravity of the offence and that the petitioner's complicity could not be ruled out. Call records showed continuous contact with others, and the petitioner's last travel outside India was in September 2025. The court noted, however, that despite communications to various organisations regarding imports from foreign countries, no acknowledgment or corroborating materials had been received as of the date of the order.
The court drew a clear distinction between automatic bail on the ground of pregnancy and temporary relief shaped by the specific circumstances of the case. The judgment held that “pregnancy is not an automatic ground for releasing the petitioner on bail” but that the combination of factors — the time that investigation would consume, the admitted concerns about the mother's health and the viability and interest of the foetus, and the additional risks of childbirth in custody — tipped the balance toward interim relief.
The court identified four specific factors that guided it: the health of the mother; the availability of obstetric facilities in jail; the risk to the unborn child; and the advanced stage of pregnancy with a delivery date of 13 August 2026.
On the Section 37 question, the court's reasoning proceeded on the basis that the humanitarian considerations arising from advanced pregnancy and foetal welfare constituted grounds for interim bail, drawing on the consistent thread across the Supreme Court's direction in R.D. Upadhyay, the Punjab and Haryana High Court's reasoning in Amanjot Kaur, and the Bombay High Court's analysis in Alfiya Faisal Shaikh that Section 37 cannot operate as a blanket ban in circumstances of this nature.
Conditions Attached to the Interim Bail
The interim bail was granted until 21 September 2026. The conditions, which the Special Court was directed to impose, included surrender of the passport and availability of a particular mobile number. The petitioner was additionally required to drop a pin on Google Maps to disclose her location to the investigating officer at all times.
The petitioner was prohibited from leaving the jurisdiction of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. After release, she was required to inform the investigating officer of the nursing home or institute where she intended to be admitted for delivery. Any change of location had to be updated to the investigating officer. The NCB and its investigating agency were expressly empowered to conduct surprise checks to verify the petitioner's presence at the location furnished before release and subsequently updated.
The petitioner was directed to physically surrender before the jurisdictional Special Court by 22 September 2026.
Outcome
CRM (NDPS) 1437 of 2026 was disposed of on 16 July 2026. Shaista Khan was granted interim bail until 21 September 2026 on terms and conditions to be imposed by the Special Court, including passport surrender, GPS location disclosure, restriction to Kolkata Municipal Corporation limits, and an obligation to keep the investigating officer informed of the delivery location. The investigating agency retained the power to conduct surprise checks. The petitioner was required to surrender before the Special Court by 22 September 2026.