The Court reiterated that the constitutional right to personal liberty under Article 21 can override the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act in cases of prolonged pre-trial detention, holding that undue delay in trial constitutes a legitimate ground for bail even in commercial quantity narcotics cases. This judgment upholds and applies binding Supreme Court precedents, reinforcing the right as binding authority for all subordinate courts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/47248/2025 of RENU KAUR @ REENU KAUR Vs STATE OF PUNJAB, CNR PHHC011344752025 |
| Date of Registration | 25-08-2025 |
| 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 for other High Courts. |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Whether prolonged pre-trial detention and lack of trial progress can justify bail in commercial quantity NDPS cases despite the statutory embargo under Section 37 NDPS Act. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that even in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity and the applicability of Section 37, undue delay in trial and prolonged incarceration constitute valid grounds for bail. The bench emphasised that constitutional rights under Article 21, including the right to a speedy trial and personal liberty, override statutory embargoes when detention becomes punitive due to trial delay. The Court followed Supreme Court precedents holding that bail can be granted repeatedly where incarceration has become excessive, and each day in custody can found a new cause of action for bail. Prolonged detention without progress in trial militates against fundamental rights and should be weighed as a significant factor in bail adjudication. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court cited the principle that bail is preferred to jail and iterated the constitutional mandate for speedy trial (Article 21). It invoked the Supreme Court’s view that Section 37’s limitations are not absolute when trial delay leads to prolonged incarceration. Section 436A and relevant Supreme Court jurisprudence permit consideration of prolonged detention as an autonomous ground for bail. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner was arrested on 28.12.2023 for recovery of 8000 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride (NDPS Act – commercial quantity). After dismissal of her previous bail petition on 10.01.2025, she remained in custody for one year, ten months, and three days. Only 1 out of 27 prosecution witnesses had been examined, and no progress in the trial was attributable to her. She again sought bail citing prolonged incarceration and trial delay. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab & Haryana High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that constitutional rights to personal liberty and speedy trial (Article 21) can override Section 37 NDPS Act’s embargo on bail in cases of prolonged pre-trial incarceration.
- Holds that every day spent in custody is a new ground for bail if trial does not progress, even for commercial quantity NDPS offences.
- Sets precedent to seek bail repeatedly on grounds of delay, citing lack of trial progress and length of custody as “changed circumstances.”
- Clarifies that trial delay not attributable to the accused is a strong ground for bail despite Section 37.
- Lawyers may use this judgment to support bail applications even after earlier denials, provided new facts like extended incarceration or trial delay arise.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court outlined the settled principles for bail under the NDPS Act: gravity of accusation, likelihood of repetition, severity of punishment, and statutory embargo under Section 37.
- It recognised the maintainability of successive bail applications where “fresh grounds” or “changed circumstances” are shown, relying on Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra (2018).
- Emphasised prolonged incarceration and lack of progress in trial as key “changed circumstances.”
- Followed Supreme Court rulings (Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain, Rabdi Prakash, Manmandal, Ankur Chaudhary) holding that Section 37 NDPS does not preclude bail in cases of undue trial delay.
- Highlighted that Article 21 guarantees supersede statutory constraints if continued detention becomes punitive, and extended undertrial custody itself entitles reconsideration of bail.
- Noted that the trial delay was not attributed to any act of the petitioner.
- Ruled bail must be granted in such circumstances on strict conditions and without prejudice to trial merits.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The petitioner has been in custody for over one year and ten months.
- Only one out of 27 prosecution witnesses has been examined; trial is not progressing.
- Prolonged incarceration and trial delay amount to changed circumstances justifying bail.
Respondent (State)
- The previous bail petition was dismissed on merits after a detailed order.
- The present petition is not maintainable and should be rejected.
Factual Background
The petitioner was apprehended on 28.12.2023, with 8000 Tramadol Hydrochloride tablets recovered, leading to registration under Section 22 NDPS Act (commercial quantity). Her prior bail application was dismissed on 10.01.2025. Since then, she remained in custody for one year, ten months, and three days. The trial had advanced minimally, with just one out of 27 prosecution witnesses examined, and the delay was not attributable to the petitioner.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 37 NDPS Act: Embargoes bail for offences involving commercial quantity unless twin conditions are met.
- Section 436A CrPC: Relief for undertrials detained for prolonged periods pending trial, permitting bail where pre-trial custody is excessive.
- Article 21 of the Constitution: Right to personal liberty and speedy trial invoked as grounds to override Section 37 embargo when detention is unduly prolonged.
- The Court interpreted these provisions harmoniously, holding that statutory bars yield to constitutional rights in case of excessive delay.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring judgments were recorded in this decision.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed