Punjab & Haryana High Court holds that long incarceration and slow trial, not attributable to the accused, can dilute Section 37 NDPS Act restrictions on granting regular bail—even in commercial quantity cases—upholding Supreme Court and prior High Court authority. Stands as binding precedent for subordinate courts handling NDPS cases involving prolonged pre-trial detention.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/53007/2025 of SXXXX @ SXXXXX Vs STATE OF HARYANA |
| CNR | PHHC011521512025 |
| Date of Registration | 17-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent and Supreme Court authority |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law / Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), Article 21, Procedure relating to bail |
| Questions of Law | Whether the right to speedy trial and prolonged undertrial detention constitute “substantial change in circumstances” sufficient to dilute the rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act and grant regular bail, even in commercial quantity cases. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that when the trial is inordinately delayed, and the accused has undergone prolonged pre-trial incarceration not attributable to their own conduct, the embargo under Section 37 NDPS Act may be relaxed. The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is fundamental, and when delays are caused by factors beyond the accused’s control, continued detention may amount to punitive imprisonment. Courts must balance the intent behind NDPS with the accused’s constitutional rights, and may grant bail in commercial quantity cases on grounds of undue delay, with appropriate conditions to ensure the process of justice is not impeded. Second or successive bail petitions are maintainable in law, particularly when there is substantial change in circumstances. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, arrested on 16.03.2024 for offences under Sections 15-C, 17-B, and 29 of the NDPS Act, in connection with alleged recovery of doda post and opium, had already spent over 1 year and 4 months in custody. Only 1 out of 20 prosecution witnesses had been examined post-charge. The petition was the second bail attempt, the first having been dismissed as withdrawn. Interim bail was granted and extended, with no allegation of misuse against the petitioner. State opposed bail citing seriousness and Section 37 bar. Court found continued trial delay, long incarceration, and compliance with bail conditions as substantial change justifying regular bail. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana for bail under NDPS Act, especially involving prolonged pre-trial detention. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and can be cited before the Supreme Court where similar facts exist. |
| Follows | Follows Supreme Court judgments (Hussainara Khatoon, Abdul Rehman Antulay, Mohd Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi)), and prior High Court precedents (Rafiq Khan, Kulwinder Singh). |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that excessive undertrial incarceration—without substantial trial progress and not attributable to accused—constitutes grounds to dilute Section 37 NDPS Act embargo and permit bail, even in commercial quantity cases.
- Second or successive bail petitions are maintainable if there is a substantial change in circumstances (e.g., inordinate trial delay).
- State’s mere opposition and seriousness of offence do not negate Article 21 rights if the justice system is delayed.
- Lawyers handling NDPS Act cases with slow prosecution/trial progress and long custody can rely on this precedent to seek regular bail.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court recognized that the only bar to a second or successive bail petition is the absence of a “substantial change in circumstances.” The petitioner’s length of custody, lack of trial progress, and clean conduct on bail were accepted as such changes.
- Section 37 NDPS Act usually creates a strict embargo against bail in commercial quantity cases. However, when there is excessive delay in completion of trial—without the accused’s fault—the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 prevails.
- The Court cited and followed key Supreme Court judgments and cited its own prior decisions holding that prolonged pre-trial detention and systematic judicial delay demand reconsideration, tilting the balance in favour of bail.
- The right to life and liberty embodied in Article 21 cannot be rendered nugatory by procedural delays; the justice system must act with reasonable dispatch.
- The decision is expressly not an assessment on merits but an upholding of constitutional safeguards.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Arrested on 16.03.2024; long period of custody exceeding one year.
- Interim bail granted and extended, with no misuse of liberty.
- Mandatory NDPS provisions not fully complied with; inherent defects in prosecution case.
- Delay in trial is substantial; only 1 of 20 witnesses examined.
- Sought regular bail citing prolonged incarceration and delayed trial.
Respondent (State of Haryana)
- Opposed bail citing seriousness of allegations and commercial quantity under NDPS Act.
- Asserted Section 37 NDPS Act imposes strict conditions barring bail.
- No case for regular bail made out.
Factual Background
The petitioner was arrested on 16.03.2024 for offences under Sections 15-C, 17-B, and 29 of the NDPS Act relating to alleged recovery of 6600 kg doda post and 1 kg 800 gm opium. After the presentation of the charge sheet, only one out of twenty prosecution witnesses had been examined. Interim bail was repeatedly extended, with no allegation of misuse, and prolonged custody exceeded a year. The second petition was filed after the first was dismissed as withdrawn.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 37 NDPS Act: The Court discussed the statutory rigours barring bail in commercial quantity cases, stressing the requirement for courts to be satisfied about the accused’s non-involvement and non-repeat likelihood.
- Article 21, Constitution of India: Examined as embodying the right to a speedy trial; interpreted as capable of overriding statutory embargoes under exceptional circumstances like undue delay.
- Section 482 CrPC and judicial discretion invoked regarding maintainability and evaluation of second bail petitions.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions are noted in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Reaffirmed maintainability of successive bail applications on change of circumstances, with an onus on the applicant to demonstrate substantial, not superficial, change.
- Imposed specific conditions for bail, including affidavit requirement, mandatory reporting, and grounds for cancellation on breach, to mitigate prosecution concerns.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed