The Punjab and Haryana High Court, affirming and applying recent Supreme Court and High Court judgments, has held that prolonged pre-trial incarceration — not attributable to the accused — can justify overriding the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and grant of bail, firmly embedding the right to speedy trial under Article 21 as a counterweight to strict statutory embargoes. This ruling follows and further clarifies precedent, providing binding authority for future cases involving delayed trials under the NDPS Act.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/5192/2025 of RAJBIR Vs STATE OF HARYANA |
| CNR | PHHC010141682025 |
| Date of Registration | 28-01-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding (for courts subordinate to Punjab & Haryana High Court) |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms and applies recent Supreme Court and High Court judgments |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law / Narcotics Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether prolonged pre-trial incarceration, delay in trial, and Article 21 rights can justify bail under NDPS Act in the face of Section 37 embargo. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court recognized the fundamental right to a speedy trial as integral to Article 21 of the Constitution. It held that, where the accused has been in custody for a substantial period (over two years), and with no substantial progress in the trial not attributable to the accused, the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act may be relaxed in favor of bail. The Court referenced both Supreme Court and High Court authorities to confirm that prolonged pre-trial incarceration, absent evidence of likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence, militates against continued detention. Timely dispensation of justice pervades over statutory embargoes in appropriate cases. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
The court gave detailed consideration to the intersection of Article 21 rights and the NDPS Act’s Section 37. It cited established jurisprudence holding that the right to a speedy trial is essential and cannot be overridden by procedural delays not caused by the accused. If trial is protracted due to state or systemic inefficiency, continued incarceration violates Article 21 and may justify bail even in commercial quantity cases under Section 37. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner was arrested on 10.05.2023 for alleged involvement in an NDPS Act case involving recovery of 8 kg 100 gms charas. Investigation was completed and challan presented on 10.11.2023. Out of 20 cited prosecution witnesses, only one had been examined at the time of the petition. The accused had been in custody for more than two years, with no substantial progress in the trial and no evidence of likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence. The previous bail plea was dismissed as withdrawn. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and possibly the Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court expressly holds that the statutory embargo on bail in commercial quantity NDPS cases under Section 37 can be diluted if the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is infringed by prolonged, unjustifiable pre-trial incarceration.
- The court adopts and details criteria for when a second/successive regular bail application is maintainable and deserving of consideration.
- Deficiency in prosecution progress (delay in witness examination) is recognized as a valid circumstance for bail, especially when earlier bail attempts were withdrawn, not dismissed on merits.
- Detailed guidelines from Raffiq Khan v. State of Haryana and Kulwinder v. State of Punjab are affirmed and encouraged for future use by trial courts.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted the gravity of charges and the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act but emphasized the constitutional protection of life and liberty under Article 21.
- Adopted the five-point principles on successive bail petitions restated in Raffiq Khan v. State of Haryana, specifically that such petitions are maintainable and must show substantial change in circumstances, such as extended incarceration and lack of trial progress.
- Thoroughly relied upon the jurisprudence in Kulwinder v. State of Punjab, analyzing leading Supreme Court cases (Hussainara Khatoon, Antulay, Mohd Muslim, etc.), reaffirming that right to speedy trial is part of Article 21 and cannot be set aside by systemic or procedural delays, even in NDPS commercial quantity cases.
- Recognized that trial delays are not attributable to the accused. Observed systemic inefficiency and overburdened courts are not justification for denying liberty.
- Balanced the public interest in combating drug offences with individual liberty, concluding that protracted trial can override the Section 37 embargo.
- Set detailed bail conditions to safeguard the trial, emphasizing that any breach allows for cancellation of bail.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The petitioner has been in custody since 10.05.2023, over two years without substantial trial progress.
- Mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act were not scrupulously followed.
- The trial delay is not attributable to the petitioner.
- The petitioner is not involved in any other FIR.
Respondent/State
- Allegations against the petitioner are serious and involve commercial quantity under NDPS Act.
- Section 37 of NDPS Act imposes a bar on bail, which should not be relaxed.
- Custody certificate was submitted to Court to evidence continued detention.
Factual Background
The petitioner was arrested on 10.05.2023 based on an FIR alleging recovery of 8 kg 100 gms of charas from a co-accused’s backpack at a police apprehension in Rohtak. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since then. Investigation culminated in filing the challan on 10.11.2023. Despite 20 prosecution witnesses being cited, only one had been examined by the date of the petition. The earlier bail application had been dismissed as withdrawn.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 37 of NDPS Act: The court examined the twin requirements for bail in commercial quantity cases—reasonable grounds for believing innocence, and assurance the accused will not reoffend on bail. The court interpreted Section 37 not as an absolute bar, especially where Article 21 rights to speedy trial are at stake due to prolonged unjustified incarceration.
- Article 21 of the Constitution: The right to speedy trial was recognized as essential to the right to life and personal liberty, forming a counterbalance even to stringent statutory embargoes under the NDPS Act.
- No other statutory or constitutional provisions were directly interpreted.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate concurring or dissenting opinion is recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Reiterated maintainability and circumstances as to when successive or second bail applications can be entertained after withdrawal or dismissal of earlier applications.
- Laid down, by affirming precedent, the necessity for trial courts to record cogent and explicit reasons for granting bail in successive bail petitions, especially when substantial change in circumstances, such as custody length and trial delay, are established.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision follows and applies Supreme Court and recent High Court judgments, affirming the principle that Article 21 rights can override procedural bars to bail under Section 37 NDPS Act, in appropriate cases involving undue delay.