Punjab & Haryana High Court clarifies that, notwithstanding Section 37 NDPS Act’s rigour, regular bail may be granted when implication is solely on co-accused’s disclosure uncorroborated by other evidence, and trial delays result in prolonged incarceration—harmonising statutory embargo with constitutional rights. Affirmative precedent; can be relied upon in regular bail applications in similar cases.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/53310/2024 of SUKHWINDER SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA |
| CNR | PHHC011451062024 |
| Date of Registration | 23-10-2024 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Judge: MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Punjab & Haryana High Court jurisdiction; persuasive for others |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court and High Court precedent; clarifies interplay between Section 37 NDPS Act and Article 21 |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure (Bail, NDPS Act, BNSS); Constitutional (Article 21 – Right to Speedy Trial) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The court holds that the sole basis of implication—an uncorroborated disclosure by a co-accused—cannot form the basis for continued denial of bail in NDPS commercial quantity cases. The right to a speedy trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution takes precedence where the trial is protracted due to no fault of the accused. Section 37 NDPS Act’s rigour is not absolute and can be diluted on grounds of prolonged incarceration and lack of substantive linking evidence. The balancing of personal liberty with the interest of justice must guide bail decisions in such contexts. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner was implicated in an FIR under sections 15C/17B/29/61/85 of the NDPS Act based solely on the disclosure statement of a co-accused. No recovery was effected from the petitioner. He was arrested on 20.07.2024, challan presented 22.08.2024, but only one witness examined out of 20. The petitioner has suffered over one year of incarceration, with the trial delayed by the prosecution. There is no indication of potential absconding or evidence-tampering. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab & Haryana; must be followed on similar facts. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; Supreme Court (as an articulation of recent Supreme Court judgments’ logic in bail under NDPS/BNSS). |
| Follows | Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu; Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi); and others as detailed in the judgment. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that disclosure statements by co-accused, in absence of corroborative material, are of weak evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for implicating an accused, especially in bail matters under the NDPS Act.
- Clarifies that prolonged undertrial incarceration, where delay is not attributed to the accused, can justify bail even in commercial quantity NDPS cases, harmonizing Section 37 NDPS Act with Article 21 constitutional rights.
- Explicitly recognises that the embargo under Section 37 NDPS Act is not absolute and may be diluted where the trial’s delay results from prosecution/systemic inefficiency.
- Bail can be granted regardless of the accused’s involvement in other FIRs, if on the facts of the specific case, grounds for bail are otherwise made out.
- The decision can be relied upon as binding precedent within Punjab & Haryana High Court jurisdiction for similar bail motions under NDPS/BNSS.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that the only evidence linking the petitioner to the offence was the disclosure statement by a co-accused, with no recovery from him, and that such evidence—per Supreme Court and High Court precedent—is inherently weak and cannot alone justify continued incarceration.
- The right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is central; the petitioner’s incarceration exceeding one year, with no substantial prosecution progress, triggered this fundamental right.
- Section 37 NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for bail in commercial quantity cases, but these must be balanced with the accused’s right to personal liberty and a timely trial. Where trial delay is neither caused by nor attributable to the accused, Article 21 operates to dilute the statutory embargo.
- The Court relied on binding precedents from Supreme Court (e.g., Tofan Singh, Mohd Muslim @ Hussain, Hussainara Khatoon), recent High Court decisions, and established that further remand would not serve justice.
- Additional criminal antecedents (other FIRs) do not, by themselves, suffice to withhold bail in the present matter if grant of bail is otherwise justified.
- Conditional bail was granted with stringent and specific safeguards to ensure trial participation and prevent evidence tampering.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- In custody since 20.07.2024; suffered more than one year of incarceration.
- Implication is solely based on disclosure of co-accused with no independent corroborative evidence or recovery from the petitioner.
- The trial is delayed, with only one out of twenty prosecution witnesses examined thus far.
- Maintains that delay is not attributable to him and pleads for regular bail on these grounds.
State (Respondent)
- Opposed bail, arguing seriousness of allegations and bar on bail imposed by Section 37 NDPS Act.
- Emphasised commercial quantity and the applicability of the statutory embargo.
- Submitted the custody certificate in court.
Factual Background
The petitioner was implicated in an FIR registered under Sections 15C, 17B, 29, 61, and 85 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Ellenabad, Sirsa, Haryana, in respect of alleged recovery of 60 kg doda post and 11.8 kg opium from a co-accused. The petitioner’s implication stemmed solely from the disclosure statement of co-accused Trilok Singh (@ Toti); he was neither found at the spot nor was any recovery made from him. He has been in custody since 20.07.2024, with the challan filed on 22.08.2024, but only one witness out of twenty has testified, demonstrating slow progress of the trial.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 37 NDPS Act: The Court scrutinised the embargo on bail in commercial quantity cases, which mandates satisfaction of “reasonable grounds” for believing the accused is not guilty and would not commit any offence while on bail.
- Interpreted Section 37 not as an absolute bar, but as subject to constitutional mandates under Article 21 for speedy trial.
- Article 21 Constitution: Right to life and personal liberty, including expeditious trial, is woven into bail jurisprudence.
- Examined compliance with procedural mandates under the BNSS, 2023, in the context of regular bail.
Procedural Innovations
- Imposed additional mandatory conditions beyond standard bail bonds—such as monthly affidavits by the petitioner confirming no fresh crime, deposit of passport, furnishing cell number to IO/SHO, and explicit directions for expeditious State action in event of breach—thereby bolstering oversight on bail.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Consistently applies and harmonises Supreme Court and previous High Court rulings regarding bail under NDPS Act commercial quantity charges and right to speedy trial.