The Court holds that undue delay in trial, leading to significant undertrial incarceration, can override the rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act, upholding the right to speedy trial under Article 21. This judgment affirms and applies recent Supreme Court precedent, reaffirming the principle’s binding value in NDPS matters, and is authoritative for lower courts in Punjab and Haryana.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/1418/2025 of NACHATTAR ALIAS NACHHATAR Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC010040152025 |
| Date of Registration | 10-01-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – NDPS Act; Fundamental Rights – Article 21 (Speedy Trial) |
| Questions of Law | Whether prolonged undertrial detention and delay in trial justifies grant of bail in NDPS Act cases involving commercial quantity, notwithstanding Section 37 NDPS Act? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that the right to speedy trial is integral to Article 21 and may, in cases of protracted undertrial detention not attributable to the accused, justify bail notwithstanding the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. When trial delay leads to lengthy incarceration, courts must balance legislative intent with fundamental rights, ensuring that pre-trial detention does not become punitive. Inordinate delay in concluding trial, absent valid prosecution justification or accused’s fault, can dilute Section 37’s rigour and warrant conditional liberty. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Reiterated the constitutional imperative of Article 21 right to speedy trial; cited Supreme Court on balancing rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act against rights of undertrial prisoners. Affirmed the duty of courts to prevent prolonged, oppressive pre-trial incarceration where delay is not attributable to the accused. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Accused arrested on 17.02.2024 for alleged recovery of 960 Alprazolam tablets (117.12g), charged under Sections 22/29 and 27B NDPS Act. Investigation completed and challan filed on 19.07.2024, but no prosecution witnesses examined to date. Petitioner in custody for over 1 year and 8 months; trial delay not attributable to accused. State relied on seriousness of offence and rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts of Punjab & Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment expressly recognizes that prolonged delay in trial—leading to substantial undertrial incarceration—may justify bail in NDPS cases even where Section 37 ordinarily imposes a strict bar.
- Reliance is placed on recent Supreme Court and High Court precedents emphasizing Article 21 (right to speedy trial) as an overriding consideration when delay is not attributable to the accused.
- Multiple bail conditions are prescribed for such cases, including regular affidavits, phone number disclosure, prohibition on trial delay, and passport deposit.
- The mere pendency of other FIRs against the accused is not, by itself, sufficient ground to deny bail if case for bail is otherwise made out in the current FIR.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court reiterated that the right to a speedy trial is embedded in Article 21 of the Constitution and protects against undue pre-trial incarceration. Protracted incarceration without conclusion of trial, where delay is not due to the accused, signals violation of fundamental rights.
- The Court cited binding precedents (Hussainara Khatoon, Abdul Rehman Antulay, Mohd Muslim @ Hussain, Gopal Krishna Patra, Chitta Biswas, etc.), and a recent High Court decision (Kulwinder v. State of Punjab) which collectively propound that where there is inordinate and unjustified delay, courts can dilute the embargo of Section 37 NDPS Act.
- The principles from these cases were applied: Section 37’s twin conditions for bail in commercial quantity NDPS offence are not absolute where trial delay severely impairs the accused’s liberty and is not attributable to him.
- The Court further clarified that involvement in other cases (other FIRs) cannot automatically preclude regular bail if the fact situation in the present FIR warrants conditional release.
- Bail was granted subject to compliance with numerous strict conditions to balance concerns of prosecution and society.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Petitioner is in custody since 17.02.2024.
- Mandatory provisions of NDPS Act not complied with; prosecution case has inherent defects.
- Trial has been unduly delayed, with no fault of the petitioner; none of the 18 cited prosecution witnesses examined.
- Petitioner has suffered over 1.5 years incarceration; urged for regular bail.
Respondent/State
- Allegations are serious in nature; petitioner accused under NDPS Act in a commercial quantity case.
- Bail plea barred by rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act; should not be granted.
- Produced custody certificate to show petitioner’s incarceration and involvement in other FIRs.
Factual Background
The petitioner was arrested on 17.02.2024 in FIR No. 08 dated 17.02.2024, Police Station Ghall Khurd, District Ferozepur, for alleged recovery of 960 Alprazolam tablets (117.12 grams) under Sections 22/29 (and later 27B) of the NDPS Act. The charge sheet was filed on 19.07.2024, citing 18 prosecution witnesses; however, none has been examined until the decision date. The petitioner has been in custody for 1 year, 8 months, and 12 days. The prosecution opposed bail, relying on Section 37 NDPS Act and the seriousness of the offence.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 37, NDPS Act: Lays down stringent conditions (“twin test”) for bail in commercial quantity drug offences; bail can be granted only if (a) court is satisfied accused is not guilty, and (b) he is not likely to commit another offence while on bail.
- Article 21, Constitution of India: Right to life and personal liberty (including speedy trial) is central; referenced to balance and, in certain cases, dilute statutory bar under Section 37 when undertrial incarceration becomes excessive.
- Court highlighted that special courts under Section 36-A NDPS Act are intended to ensure expeditious trials, which is frustrated when faced with “systematic inefficiency.”
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court mandated a set of specific conditions for release on bail in such cases, including:
- Regular affidavits regarding non-involvement in further offences
- Deposit of passport
- Providing phone number to the investigating officer
- Prohibition on delaying the trial
- Stipulating that new offences post-release shall prompt immediate application for cancellation of bail
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and applies Supreme Court and High Court precedents on balancing NDPS Act rigour with Article 21.