Punjab and Haryana High Court affirms that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 can justify grant of bail in NDPS commercial quantity cases, even where Section 37 imposes strict conditions—if trial is unduly delayed due to State inaction. Judgment upholds and applies recent Supreme Court and High Court precedents, serving as binding authority in similar scenarios.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/32001/2025 of MANDEEP ALIAS DHOLU Vs STATE OF HARYANA |
| CNR | PHHC010939812025 |
| Date of Registration | 06-06-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Bench – MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent; applies recent SC/HC judgments |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – Bail under NDPS Act; Fundamental Rights |
| Questions of Law | Whether delay in trial not attributable to the accused justifies granting bail in NDPS Act commercial quantity cases despite Section 37 restrictions. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is an overriding safeguard against undue and oppressive incarceration. When a trial is inordinately delayed and the delay cannot be attributed to the accused, the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act may be relaxed and bail granted, even in cases involving commercial quantity. The judgment underscores that the accused cannot be held in pre-trial detention for an indefinite period on account of delays due to prosecutorial or administrative inefficiency. The Court emphasizes that the guarantee of a speedy trial serves not only the accused but also the broader interests of justice, and courts have a duty to balance legislative intent to curb drug offences with the accused’s fundamental rights. In this context, continued detention was held unjustified, and bail was granted subject to stringent conditions. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Article 21 of the Constitution; Section 37 NDPS Act; Supreme Court and High Court precedents on bail, speedy trial, and balancing statutory ‘rigours’ with constitutional liberty. Emphasis on the duty of the State to ensure timely trial and presence of official witnesses. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner was arrested on 14.10.2024 in connection with FIR No. 277/2024 (Sections 22(C), 27A, 29 NDPS Act) concerning alleged possession of commercial quantity of Alprazolam and Tramadol. Case pending at Sadar Tohana Police Station, District Fatehabad. The petitioner had been in custody for over 9 months; trial had not commenced as none of the 29 prosecution witnesses had been examined. Delay in trial was attributed to non-appearance of official witnesses, especially police officials, even after bailable and non-bailable warrants. Interim bail was previously granted and is now made absolute, subject to stringent conditions. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; Supreme Court (as persuasive on specific procedural delay grounds) |
| Follows | Kulwinder v. State of Punjab; Supreme Court decisions cited in reasoning |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Affirms that continued pre-trial incarceration in NDPS commercial quantity cases is not mandatory where trial delay is due to State or prosecutorial apathy, not the accused.
- Reiterates that Article 21 right to speedy trial is an enforceable right overriding the bar to bail in Section 37 NDPS Act in such cases.
- Establishes a clear precedent that bail can be granted on grounds of protracted delay, with Section 37 ‘rigours’ relaxed accordingly.
- State’s financial or administrative inability to ensure trial cannot justify continued detention.
- Delay caused by non-production of official/police witnesses is impermissible; courts urged to closely monitor such cases and impose accountability on police officials and senior administration.
- Stringent bail conditions and a monthly affidavit on non-involvement in fresh offences required.
- Lawyers can rely on this judgment to seek bail for undertrials languishing due to State failures, especially where trial is stalled for reasons beyond the accused’s control.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court reviews the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which restricts bail in commercial quantity cases absent satisfaction of certain conditions.
- Citing a line of Supreme Court and High Court judgments (Kulwinder, Hussainara Khatoon, Abdul Rehman Antulay, Mohd Muslim @ Hussain, among others), the Court holds that Article 21 guarantees a speedy trial and this fundamental right cannot be defeated by procedural or administrative inefficiency.
- The Court distinguishes between trial delays attributable to the accused and systemic delays caused by prosecution or police witness non-appearance, finding the latter cannot justify ongoing detention.
- The Court notes that neither likelihood of absconding nor tampering with evidence has been established against the petitioner.
- Addresses the negative impact on justice delivery and societal confidence due to dereliction by police witnesses, citing precedent (including Supreme Court directions on State’s constitutional obligations).
- Holds that extended pre-trial detention for offences under NDPS Act, where delay is not caused by the accused, can and should be relaxed under Section 37; such constitutional mandate prevails over statutory bar in the interest of justice.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Petitioner was in custody since 14.10.2024.
- Mandatory NDPS Act provisions not complied with; prosecution case has inherent defects.
- Trial has been unduly delayed due to reasons not attributable to petitioner.
- Petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 9 months.
- Requests grant of regular bail.
State
- Offences alleged are serious in nature; petitioner does not deserve regular bail.
- Bail is barred by the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act.
- Petitioner involved in additional cases.
Factual Background
The petitioner was arrested on 14.10.2024 for alleged possession of commercial quantities of Alprazolam and Tramadol, attracting Sections 22(C), 27A, and 29 of the NDPS Act. The case was registered at Sadar Tohana Police Station, Fatehabad. After over nine months in custody, the trial had not begun, as no witnesses were examined. The principal cause of delay was the repeated non-appearance of police witnesses despite court directions, leading to prolonged undertrial incarceration not attributable to the petitioner. Interim bail was earlier granted and has now been made absolute.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 37 of the NDPS Act was strictly scrutinized; the judgment reiterates the requirement of twin conditions (‘not guilty’ and ‘not likely to commit further offences’).
- The Court treats these restrictions as subject to the right of speedy trial under Article 21.
- Cites Section 36-A NDPS Act regarding constitution of special courts for timely trials.
- Mandates that the State’s inability to ensure a speedy trial cannot override individual liberty and constitutional mandates.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions recorded in this single-judge decision.
Procedural Innovations
- Directs the Superintendent of Police, Fatehabad to file an affidavit detailing action taken against delinquent police witnesses and status of departmental enquiries, reflecting a new focus on police accountability in delayed NDPS trials.
- Requires monthly affidavit from the released accused on non-involvement in any fresh offence as a condition of bail.
- Outlines stringent bail compliance procedures.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Applies and affirms Supreme Court and recent High Court law on bail for prolonged undertrials and right to speedy trial.