Clarifies That Extended Pre-trial Detention Can Override NDPS Act Bail Restrictions Based on Article 21 — Judgment Follows and Applies Supreme Court and Division Bench Precedents, Serving as Strong Binding Authority in Punjab and Haryana
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/30507/2025 of GURMEET SINGH @ GEETA Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC010875392025 |
| Date of Registration | 27-05-2025 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value |
|
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Can prolonged incarceration and delayed trial override the statutory embargo against bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for offences involving commercial quantity? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that despite the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act, if the trial is substantially delayed and the accused has undergone lengthy incarceration, Article 21’s guarantee of personal liberty is paramount. Where the trial is not nearing conclusion and incarceration exceeds a substantial period, the embargo under Section 37 can be overridden in view of Supreme Court jurisprudence, and bail granted. The decision relies on the judgments of the Supreme Court and Division Bench of this Court, which have all recognized that undue delay resulting in protracted custody attracts the application of Article 21. Conditional liberty in such cases supersedes the statutory bar on bail. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court precedents on Article 21 overriding Section 37 NDPS Act in cases of prolonged incarceration; balancing right to speedy trial with NDPS bail embargo; conditional liberty prevails over statutory restrictions in cases of inordinate trial delay. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner apprehended on 11.06.2023 for alleged possession of 1100 loose intoxicant tablets containing Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride without license; in custody for over 2 years and 4 months; trial delayed with only 4 prosecution witnesses examined; prior bail petitions withdrawn; bail sought under Section 483 of BNSS 2023. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court in similar bail matters involving prolonged incarceration |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that prolonged incarceration due to delayed trials under the NDPS Act entitles the accused to bail, even for commercial quantity offences, overriding Section 37 embargo.
- Explicit reliance on Article 21 of the Constitution (right to personal liberty) as the basis for granting bail despite statutory restrictions of NDPS Act.
- Summarizes and applies recent Supreme Court and local Division Bench judgments, providing a strong precedent for similar bail situations in the future.
- Lawyers should cite this judgment in bail applications where trial delays result in unduly long custody for NDPS accused.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted allegations regarding possession of commercial quantity of contraband and lengthy period of custody (over two years and four months) with only limited progress in the trial.
- Thoroughly considered the Supreme Court’s opinions in Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, Ankur Chaudhary v. State of MP, Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, all of which articulated that inordinate delays resulting in long pre-trial detention trigger the application of Article 21, thus allowing bail even where statutory embargoes under Section 37 NDPS Act exist.
- Relied on the Division Bench precedent of Bhupender Singh v. NCB, which also held that constitutional rights to speedy trial and liberty must be balanced against the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act.
- Held that continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose, and that the right to conditional liberty prevails where the trial has been substantially delayed.
- Accordingly, bail was granted subject to bonds, with liberty to prosecution to seek cancellation on future misconduct.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Alleged false implication and planting of recovery.
- Emphasized continuous custody exceeding two years and four months.
- Pointed to substantial delay in trial, evidenced by only four prosecution witnesses being examined so far.
- Claimed non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act during recovery.
- Asserted that further incarceration would serve no useful purpose and sought regular bail.
Respondent (State)
- Emphasized the gravity of allegations involving commercial quantity of contraband.
- Contended that the petitioner was not entitled to bail due to the seriousness of the offence and application of Section 37 NDPS Act.
- Urged for dismissal of the bail petition.
Factual Background
The petitioner was apprehended by police on 11.06.2023, allegedly in possession of 1100 loose intoxicant tablets containing Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride without authorization. An FIR was filed under Section 22 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Jodhan, District Ludhiana. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for over two years and four months, with only four prosecution witnesses examined to date, indicating significant delay in the trial. This was the third bail petition, with previous ones dismissed as withdrawn.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court addressed Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which ordinarily imposes strict requirements and embargoes for grant of bail in cases involving commercial quantity offences.
- Interpreted the relationship between Section 37 and Article 21 of the Constitution, in light of Supreme Court directions, to mean that the statutory embargo does not preclude bail in the event of unduly delayed trial and prolonged incarceration.
- No “reading down” of Section 37 was performed, but conditional liberty was permitted to prevail in light of constitutional guarantees.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered in this judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural rules or innovations were pronounced in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court and Division Bench precedents on the relationship between prolonged pre-trial detention, Article 21, and NDPS Act bail restrictions were affirmed and applied.