Bail may be granted under the NDPS Act when the accused faces prolonged custody, there is no recovery of contraband from their person, and delay in trial is not attributable to the accused—this judgment upholds existing law and sets binding precedent for courts within Punjab and Haryana, especially in cases involving similar factual circumstances.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/57366/2024 of MANDEEP SINGH @ DEEP Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC011575682024 |
| Date of Registration | 14-11-2024 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Whether bail should be granted under Section 439 CrPC in NDPS cases where the accused is not personally recovered with contraband, has undergone lengthy incarceration, and delay in trial is not attributable to the accused. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
Bail can be granted in NDPS Act cases when, after a long period of incarceration, the accused is not shown to have had personal possession of contraband and no trial progress occurs due to no fault of the accused. The status of ownership of vehicles involved, absence of prior NDPS history, and lack of direct recovery are all relevant factors. The decision emphasises that courts must consider not only the rigours of the NDPS Act but also fundamental rights to liberty and speedy trial. The judge made it clear this order pertains only to bail and does not reflect on the merits of the prosecution case. The State is given liberty to seek cancellation of bail if it is misused. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The order is based on the circumstances of prolonged custody, lack of recovery from the petitioner, trial delays not attributable to the accused, and lack of prior criminal history under NDPS Act. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
FIR registered under Sections 21(C) and 29 of NDPS Act and Section 25 of Arms Act. 300 grams heroin recovered from motorcycle tool box registered to co-accused, with petitioner as pillion rider; no contraband found on petitioner, though firearm and cartridges allegedly recovered. No prior NDPS cases against petitioner. Charges framed 14.05.2025; no prosecution witness examined as of decision date due to absence, not due to accused’s default. Petitioner in custody since 31.03.2024. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering bail in similar NDPS/Arms Act situations; not binding beyond Punjab & Haryana |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that in NDPS Act cases, bail consideration must weigh delays in trial beyond the accused’s control, the lack of personal recovery of contraband, and clean past record.
- Clarifies courts’ duty to not mechanically deny bail merely on the basis of commercial quantity or Section 37 NDPS Act when the above factors exist.
- Holds that repeated non-appearance of prosecution witnesses and resultant trial delays not attributable to the accused may be considered a ground for bail even in serious NDPS Act offences.
- States that the State may seek cancellation if bail conditions are abused, but mere severity of the offence is not conclusive in depriving interim liberty.
- Lawyers handling NDPS matters can cite this order when facing prolonged pretrial detention and procedural delays, especially where there is no direct recovery from the accused.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the factual matrix: the petitioner was not the owner or rider of the motorcycle from which heroin was recovered, and no direct recovery of contraband was made from his person. Instead, the only article recovered was a firearm and cartridges.
- The State failed to factually dispute that the vehicle was registered to a co-accused and that the petitioner had no previous NDPS Act cases and no contraband was recovered from him.
- The Court reviewed the procedural progress: since the filing of charges on 14.05.2025, repeated adjournments took place solely due to the prosecution’s failure to produce its own witnesses, not due to any action or delay attributable to the accused.
- The Court held that, given the long pre-trial detention and these uncontested facts, bail should be allowed, emphasising that observations herein do not influence the merits of the case.
- The State’s right to apply for cancellation of bail in case of misuse is explicitly preserved.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Alleged false implication; petitioner was only the pillion rider, not the owner or driver of the motorcycle from which contraband was recovered.
- No recovery of any contraband from the petitioner’s person; only a purported firearm and cartridges.
- No prior involvement in NDPS Act cases, indicating absence of criminal antecedents.
- Long custody since 31.03.2024 with no trial progress due to prosecution’s failure to secure witnesses.
- Repeated production of trial court orders (zimni) to demonstrate delays not attributable to petitioner.
Respondent (State)
- All accused, including the petitioner, were intercepted travelling together, suggesting their awareness of the transported heroin (commercial quantity).
- No secret information about the petitioner’s involvement, but inference should be drawn from collective travel.
- Admitted lack of any recovery of contraband from petitioner.
- Acknowledged the petitioner has no previous NDPS Act crime.
- Unable to dispute the details of trial delays being prosecution’s fault and registration status of vehicle.
Factual Background
An FIR was registered on 31.03.2024 under Sections 21(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act after the police intercepted a motorcycle, recovering 300 grams of heroin from the tool box and a firearm with cartridges from the petitioner. The motorcycle was registered to a co-accused (Karamjit Singh), who was driving; the petitioner was a pillion rider. The petitioner has been in custody since the date of arrest, with no prior NDPS offence alleged against him. Following the filing of the challan and framing of charges, the trial failed to progress due to repeated non-appearance of prosecution witnesses, all delays being on the prosecution’s end.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Considered for grant of bail in cases of non-bailable offences, including those involving commercial quantity under NDPS Act.
- Sections 21(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985: Offences relating to possession and conspiracy to traffic commercial quantity of narcotics.
- Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959: Offence relating to unauthorised possession of firearms or ammunition.
- The Court interpreted these provisions while considering whether the rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act is relaxed when there is no personal recovery and long trial delays not attributable to the petitioner.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Applies and clarifies existing legal principles regarding bail in NDPS cases, especially where trial delays are not attributable to the accused and no contraband is found on the accused.