The High Court of Punjab and Haryana clarified that even in commercial quantity NDPS cases, extended pre-trial detention and absence of evidence progress may justify grant of bail, especially where conscious possession of the contraband is disputed. This judgment upholds existing legal standards but clarifies the court’s discretion under prolonged incarceration and unresolved trial issues, serving as binding authority for subordinate courts in similar situations.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/46887/2025 of RAHUL Vs STATE OF HARYANA |
| CNR | PHHC011352852025 |
| Date of Registration | 25-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS); Bail Pending Trial |
| Questions of Law | Whether bail can be granted in commercial quantity NDPS cases involving disputed conscious possession and prolonged pre-trial detention, despite the conditions in Section 37. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that when the trial is delayed, not a single prosecution witness is examined, and the accused’s conscious possession is not prima facie established, bail may be granted even for commercial quantity NDPS offences. The petitioner’s mere presence in the vehicle with contraband does not, solely by itself, prove conscious possession; this must be adjudicated at trial. Prolonged incarceration without trial progress could amount to undue hardship and hinder rehabilitation. The rigor of Section 37 must be balanced against the right to fair and expeditious trial. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner was found on the rear seat of a car from which 20.38 kg of ganja was recovered. He has been in custody since 14.06.2024; no prosecution witness had been examined till the date of order. Petitioner has prior cases but is on bail in them. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court in cases involving prolonged pre-trial detention under NDPS Act |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that bail under Section 37 NDPS Act may be justified in commercial quantity cases if the accused’s conscious possession is not prima facie established and trial is unduly delayed.
- Reinforces that mere presence in a vehicle with contraband is insufficient to prove conscious possession—role and knowledge require examination at trial.
- Delays in prosecution and non-examination of witnesses weigh heavily in favor of bail, even in commercial quantity cases.
- Lawyers may cite this judgment to seek bail in similar cases involving disputed possession and prolonged incarceration.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court acknowledged the application of Section 37 NDPS Act due to commercial quantity (20.38 kg) recovery but emphasized that bail conditions are not absolute and must be evaluated with case-specific facts.
- Highlighted that mere physical presence in a vehicle with contraband is not tantamount to conscious possession; prosecution must prove knowledge and intent.
- The petitioner’s prolonged incarceration since 14.06.2024, coupled with the absence of trial progress or witness examination, constituted undue hardship.
- Although the petitioner had antecedents, he was already on bail in those cases, and their existence alone was not sufficient to deny present bail.
- Concluded that continued detention, in the absence of trial movement, is unjustified—bail was granted, balancing the rigor of Section 37 with right to expeditious trial and rehabilitation prospects.
- Specified that findings are not expressions on merits for the trial court.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Contended that mere presence in the vehicle cannot be equated with conscious possession.
- Prosecution must prove the petitioner’s knowledge and conscious possession of the contraband.
- Cited prolonged custody (over one year and two months) and non-examination of witnesses as grounds for bail.
- Emphasized willingness to thoroughly contest the weighing and recovery procedure at trial.
Respondent (State)
- Emphasized commercial quantity recovery triggers Section 37 NDPS Act bar on bail.
- Cited petitioner’s involvement in two other cases (including one NDPS case) to argue for potential threat to society.
- Argued that granting bail could adversely affect investigation, trial, and public interest given the seriousness of the offence.
Factual Background
FIR No. 180 dated 14.06.2024 was registered under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 29 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Sector-65, Gurugram, following recovery of 20.38 kg ganja from a car in which the petitioner was seated in the rear seat. The main accused allegedly escaped. The petitioner was in custody since the date of recovery, and no prosecution witnesses had been examined as of the bail decision.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 37 of the NDPS Act was central, regarding stringent requirements for bail in commercial quantity offences.
- The court discussed the requirement of “conscious possession” to prosecute under the NDPS Act, clarifying that it involves not just presence but knowledge and control over the contraband.
- The court noted the necessity to balance the strictness of Section 37 with fair trial rights, especially when pre-trial detention is indefinite due to prosecution delays.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court applies and clarifies existing law on Section 37 NDPS Act and bail.