Bail granted where accused was in custody for an extended period with no prosecution witnesses examined and no likelihood of early trial conclusion; upholds established precedent on the right to bail in cases of undue delay. Applicable as binding authority for subordinate courts in the jurisdiction on prolonged incarceration under NDPS and related offences.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/1298/2025 of PRATAP Vs STATE OF HARYANA |
| CNR | PHHC010037752025 |
| Date of Registration | 10-01-2025 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law—NDPS Act; Drugs & Cosmetics Act; Indian Penal Code |
| Questions of Law | Whether prolonged incarceration due to delayed trial entitles an accused (not named in FIR and arrested on disclosure statement) to bail under NDPS and related offences. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in similar prolonged trial situations under special statutes |
| Follows | Established precedent on bail and Article 21 rights in context of trial delay |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that extended custody without trial progress, even under strict statutes like the NDPS Act, violates Article 21 and justifies bail.
- Bail can be considered for accused not named in FIR but implicated via disclosure, especially if trial is indefinitely delayed.
- Grant of bail on ground of parity with co-accused previously released on bail.
- Imposes condition for cancellation if bail is misused.
- Observations in order not to be construed as expression on merits—focus remains procedural/fundamental right.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court observed the petitioner was in jail since 22.11.2023 with the trial yet to begin and none of the 26 prosecution witnesses examined.
- The Court emphasized the settled legal proposition that prolonged incarceration offends the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- State’s argument of seriousness and risk of absconding was considered but outweighed by the delay and absence of trial progress.
- The Court also considered parity as co-accused had already been granted bail.
- Concluded that continued detention would not serve any useful purpose.
- Ordered release on bail, subject to conditions, with clear stipulation for cancellation upon misuse.
- Clarified that observations in the order are not to be read as prejudging the merits.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Not named in FIR.
- Implicated solely by disclosure statement of co-accused, inadmissible in evidence.
- In custody since 22.11.2023.
- Mandatory provisions of NDPS Act not complied with.
- No progress in trial; no witnesses examined.
- Clean antecedents.
- Co-accused granted bail—seeks parity.
- Further incarceration serves no purpose.
Respondent (State)
- Serious nature of allegations.
- Petitioner allegedly supplied ‘codein’.
- Apprehension of absconding if released.
- Opposed grant of bail.
Factual Background
The FIR was lodged on 05.03.2023 after secret information led to the discovery of illegal manufacturing and packaging of narcotic cough syrup. Two accused were apprehended on site; large quantities of codeine-containing syrup and manufacturing materials were seized, and no valid licenses were produced. Through the disclosure statements of arrested accused, the petitioner was nominated as an accused and arrested on 22.11.2023 on allegations of supplying codein. The case involves offences under the NDPS Act, Drugs & Cosmetics Act, and IPC. No prosecution witnesses had been examined at the time of bail hearing.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court referenced Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act; Sections 18(c), 27(b)(ii), 18(a)(i), 27(c), 17, 17-A, 17-B, and 18-A/28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act; and Section 420 IPC.
- Article 21 of the Constitution was cited regarding the fundamental right to liberty.
- Emphasized the impact of delay in trial on the accused’s right under Article 21.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Reaffirms established precedent on bail in cases of prolonged incarceration and delayed trial under Article 21.