The High Court reaffirmed that, where an accused faces prolonged incarceration with substantial trial delay, the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution may override the statutory embargo on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act—even if commercial quantity is involved. This decision follows and applies Supreme Court precedents, making it strong binding precedent for bail applications in the Punjab & Haryana jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/30507/2025 of GURMEET SINGH @ GEETA Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC010875392025 |
| Date of Registration | 27-05-2025 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within jurisdiction; persuasive authority for others |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Whether prolonged incarceration and undue delay in trial warrant grant of bail in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity, notwithstanding statutory embargo under Section 37 NDPS Act |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that where an accused is incarcerated for over two years and four months, and the trial is substantially delayed, the right to personal liberty under Article 21 must override the restrictions on bail imposed by Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. Reliance on recent Supreme Court judgments establishes that undue delay and prolonged incarceration merit conditional liberty even in commercial quantity NDPS cases. The order of bail does not restrict the prosecution’s right to seek cancellation in case of subsequent offences. Observations made are not to affect the merits of the main case. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Emphasis on balancing Article 21 fundamental rights (right to speedy trial and liberty) against stringent bail conditions under the NDPS Act; judicial precedents from Supreme Court and Division Bench followed in support |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner was arrested on 11.06.2023 after recovery of 1100 loose tablets containing Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride. No license or permit was shown; the petitioner has remained in custody for over two years and four months. Only four prosecution witnesses have been examined with no near conclusion of trial. Allegations involved commercial quantity under Section 22 NDPS Act. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court (when considering Article 21 versus Section 37 NDPS Act in bail matters) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Affirms that delay in completing prosecution and long incarceration may justify bail even in commercial quantity NDPS cases, despite Section 37 embargo.
- Reliance on Article 21 rights (right to speedy trial and personal liberty) elevated over Section 37(1)(b)(ii) NDPS Act where trial is unduly delayed.
- Supreme Court precedents provide the legal foundation; this judgment cements their application at High Court level.
- Prosecutors retain the right to seek bail cancellation if the accused commits subsequent offences.
- Subordinate courts are bound to follow this ratio; defence counsel may strongly rely on this for similarly placed accused.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court considered the duration of petitioner’s incarceration (over 2 years, 4 months) and the significant delay in the trial (only 4 prosecution witnesses examined).
- Reviewed Section 37 NDPS Act, which restricts bail in commercial quantity cases, but juxtaposed it with Article 21 of the Constitution (right to life and personal liberty).
- Relied upon Supreme Court authorities—Rabi Prakash, Ankur Chaudhary, Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain, Satender Kumar Antil—holding that amid prolonged incarceration and delayed trials, the right to liberty under Article 21 may override statutory bail restrictions.
- Applied the Division Bench authority of Bhupender Singh (Punjab & Haryana High Court), which similarly upheld that Article 21 protections can supersede Section 37 limitations when the accused’s right to speedy trial is compromised.
- As no meaningful progress in the trial was evident and continued detention was found purposeless, regular bail was granted with usual conditions.
- Explicit provision was made for prosecution to move for bail cancellation in event of future offending.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Claims of false implication and false recovery.
- Stated over two years and four months of custody.
- Pointed to substantial delay in trial (only four prosecution witnesses so far).
- Asserted police did not comply with mandatory NDPS Act provisions during alleged recovery.
- Argued further incarceration would serve no purpose.
Respondent (State)
- Emphasized gravity of allegations—commercial quantity contraband involved.
- Argued statutory bar under Section 37 NDPS Act prohibits bail.
- Urged for dismissal of bail petition.
Factual Background
The petitioner was arrested on 11 June 2023 after the police allegedly recovered 1100 loose tablets, containing Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride, from his conscious possession. He had no license or permit to possess the substances and was formally arrested at the spot under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. The police completed investigation and the petitioner, facing commercial quantity allegations, has been in custody for over two years and four months. The trial has made little progress, with only four prosecution witnesses examined so far.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court analyzed Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantity of narcotic substances.
- Interpreted the provision in light of Article 21 of the Constitution (right to life and liberty).
- Held, following Supreme Court precedents, that where trial delay leads to prolonged incarceration, the “statutory embargo” under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) must give way to Article 21 protections.
- So, Section 37 is not an absolute bar for bail in all circumstances—where there is undue delay and prolonged custody, bail may be justified for safeguarding fundamental rights.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment closely follows and applies Supreme Court authority regarding bail in NDPS cases with significant trial delay and prolonged incarceration.