The Punjab & Haryana High Court, considering significant delays in trial and prolonged undertrial incarceration, has held that the right to speedy trial may warrant bail even where the offence involves commercial quantity and attracts Section 37 NDPS Act. The judgment upholds Supreme Court precedent, clarifies prosecutorial and police duties, and reinforces binding legal standards for future bail proceedings in NDPS cases experiencing delay.
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 |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within the Punjab & Haryana jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The right to speedy trial, encapsulated within Article 21 of the Constitution, takes precedence where there is unreasonable delay in conclusion of trial and prolonged undertrial incarceration, even in cases involving commercial quantities under Section 37 NDPS Act. Bail can be considered in the face of procedural delay and prosecutorial inaction, especially when custody exceeds nine months and prosecution evidence is lacking. The State cannot rely on statutory bars if it fails to fulfill its constitutional duty to ensure speedy trial. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
The right to a speedy trial is an essential facet of Article 21. Delays caused by systemic lapses—such as non-appearance of official (police) witnesses—cannot be justified under Section 37 NDPS Act. Courts must balance legislative intent to control drug crimes with the constitutional mandate to timely adjudicate. Procedural inefficiencies and prosecutorial abdication do not justify indefinite pretrial incarceration. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner was arrested in an FIR under Sections 22(C), 27A, and 29 NDPS Act involving significant quantities of Alprazolam and Tramadol. He had been in custody for over nine months with no prosecution witnesses examined out of 29 cited. Prosecution’s main evidence was a disclosure statement; delay attributed to non-appearance of official witnesses. The matter was further aggravated by lack of action by police superiors, leading to procedural bottlenecks. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; can be cited before Supreme Court for bail in protracted NDPS trials |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment clarifies that prolonged trial delays and undertrial incarceration, not attributable to the accused, can override the statutory bar of Section 37 NDPS Act, even in commercial quantity cases.
- Prosecutorial and police inaction, such as routine non-appearance of official witnesses, is recognized as a legitimate ground for bail, reinforcing the fundamental right to speedy trial.
- The decision sets out specific mandatory bail conditions, which may be adopted by lower courts to ensure balance between liberty and continued trial.
- The presence of other criminal cases against the accused is not, by itself, a ground to deny bail if the facts of the instant case otherwise justify conditional liberty.
- Senior police officers may now face judicial scrutiny and mandatory reporting for systematic lapses that impede trial progress in NDPS prosecutions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court considered the petitioner’s lengthy incarceration (over 9 months) without trial progress, primarily due to non-appearance of official witnesses despite issuance of bailable and non-bailable warrants.
- Citing Supreme Court authorities (notably Hussainara Khatoon, Abdul Rehman Antulay, Mohd Muslim @ Hussain, among others), the judgment reaffirmed that the right to speedy trial is part of Article 21 and not subject to financial or administrative excuses by the State.
- The High Court followed earlier reasoning in Kulwinder v. State of Punjab and related Supreme Court jurisprudence, holding that the mandatory bar on bail under Section 37 NDPS Act is not absolute when delay in trial is not attributable to the accused.
- The judgment underscored that systemic failures by the prosecution or investigating agencies are sufficient to treat continued incarceration as oppressive and in violation of constitutional guarantees.
- Emphasised that the presence of other criminal cases involving the accused is not sufficient to deny bail where delay in the present case is unjustified.
- The court ordered specific conditions to govern bail, including prohibitions on tampering with evidence, committing further offences, absconding, and monthly affidavit requirements.
- Directions were issued for higher police officials to submit affidavits explaining measures taken to address witness non-attendance and departmental discipline.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The petitioner has been in custody since 14.10.2024.
- Mandatory procedural provisions under the NDPS Act were not complied with.
- The delay in trial is not attributable to the petitioner.
- Prolonged incarceration (over 9 months) constitutes a ground for bail.
State
- The allegations are serious in nature; the petitioner does not deserve regular bail.
- The bail plea is barred by the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act.
- The petitioner is involved in two more cases.
Factual Background
The petitioner was implicated in an FIR dated 03.09.2024 at Police Station Sadar Tohana, District Fatehabad, for offences punishable under Sections 22(C), 27A, and 29 of the NDPS Act, involving 2280 tablets of Alprazolam and 750 tablets of Tramadol (commercial quantity). Arrested on 14.10.2024, the petitioner was in continuous custody for over nine months. The prosecution cited 29 witnesses, but none had been examined due to repeated non-appearance of official witnesses, resulting in delayed proceedings.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 37 of the NDPS Act: The court reiterated that its twin conditions (public prosecutor heard and satisfaction that accused is not guilty and not likely to commit further offences) must be interpreted in light of constitutional guarantees under Article 21 when trial is excessively delayed for reasons not attributable to the accused.
- Article 21 of the Constitution: The right to speedy trial is fundamental and may override statutory bars when state inaction causes inordinate delay.
- Section 36-A, NDPS Act: Noted for legislative intent to facilitate speedy trials via special courts.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were addressed in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Issued mandatory directions to Superintendent of Police to provide status affidavits detailing action taken against delinquent police witnesses and ongoing departmental inquiries.
- Required monthly affidavits from the petitioner regarding non-involvement in further offences while on bail.
- Set forth a rigorous framework for bail conditions to ensure balance between the rights of the accused and the interests of justice.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed