The Punjab & Haryana High Court (2025) clarified that in prosecutions under the NDPS Act involving massive commercial quantities, bail on the ground of delay in trial due to right to speedy trial under Article 21 cannot be claimed if the delay is a result of intentional, collusive, or engineered tactics by co-accused. The judgment upholds and elaborates the precedential twin test under Section 37 NDPS Act for bail, issues new directives for expediting trials, and stands as binding authority for subordinate courts in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh, with strong persuasive value for NDPS courts pan-India.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/41621/2025 of MANJIT SINGH ALIAS MANNA Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC011200682025 |
| Date of Registration | 31-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab & Haryana |
| Bench | Single Judge (Justice Anoop Chitkara) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts of Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh; persuasive for other courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing Supreme Court precedent under S.37 NDPS Act and Article 21; introduces clarificatory directives |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – NDPS Act, Bail, Procedural Law under BNSS 2023, Constitutional Law (Art. 21) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that the twin conditions of Section 37 NDPS Act must be satisfied before bail can be granted for commercial quantity offences. Delay in trial alone is not sufficient ground for bail unless it is not attributable to the accused or co-accused. The deliberate or collusive non-appearance by co-accused on bail, resulting in trial delay, cannot be used to create a fake right to bail under Article 21. Specific pragmatic benchmarks were formulated for expediting such trials and curbing tactical abuse. Bail must be cancelled for co-accused on bail if their absence is unjustified and engineered to delay the trial. Exhaustive guidelines for speedy trial in NDPS cases involving heavy commercial quantities were issued. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
Emphasized the philosophy of “bail not jail” unless exceptions justify incarceration; interpreted Section 37 NDPS Act twin conditions strictly. Recognized right to speedy trial as component of Article 21, but found that right does not accrue if delay is self-induced by accused. Analysed the NDPS Act (including S.37, S.31A) for sentencing thresholds and the role of commercial quantity; discussed the need for pragmatic and proportional standards for expediting trials when drug quantity is above high thresholds. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner was arrested after a barricade on secret information, with seizure of 6 kg “ICE” (Methamphetamine) and 18+3 kg heroin. Multiple serious antecedents. FSL reportedly tested ICE negative, but heroin recovery remained. Petition was 4th for bail, on grounds of parity (some co-accused on bail), prolonged custody, and trial delay. State argued delay was due to evasive tactics of co-accused on bail. Order sheets showed frequent, seemingly coordinated absences by co-accused, stalling proceedings. Only 9 of 78 witnesses examined so far. The court found the delay was artificial, engineered by co-accused. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and NDPS Special Courts in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, NDPS courts nationwide, especially in commercial quantity prosecution under NDPS Act |
| Follows | Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992); Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan (2008); State of Kerala v. Raneef (2011); Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (2010); Babu Singh v. State of UP (1978); Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2011); Union of India v. Khalil Uddin (2022); Narayan Takri v. State of Odisha (2024); High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. (2024) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that delay in trial caused by deliberate non-appearance or coordinated tactics by co-accused on bail cannot be used to create a ground for bail on the basis of Article 21 right to speedy trial.
- Sets out practical benchmarks for trial courts to determine, for NDPS cases, when and how to prioritize trials based on the type and quantity of drug.
- Issues explicit procedural directions for production of accused, witness attendance, consequence for non-production, and grounds for cancellation of bail of co-accused causing delay.
- Mandates that in serious NDPS prosecutions (where seized quantity is massive), courts must expedite trial with extra vigilance against collusive delay.
- Directs that ineligible or colluding accused cannot claim parity simply because co-accused have secured bail, especially if delay is engineered.
- Designates detailed steps for all stakeholders (courts, prisons, police, FSL, prosecution, defence counsel) to achieve expeditious disposal in such cases.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court affirmed the strict position under Section 37 NDPS Act: bail in commercial quantity cases requires satisfaction of twin conditions—reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty, and that he is not likely to commit further offences on bail.
- Found on facts: Petitioner’s role as the main accused with massive contraband (84 times the intermediary quantity).
- Analysed Article 21 right to speedy trial in light of Supreme Court precedent (Abdul Rehman Antulay; Sanjay Chandra), holding that this right accrues only when trial delay is not attributed to the accused/co-accused.
- Detailed perusal of trial court order sheets showed the delay was engineered by co-accused on bail—frequent absences, non-cooperation, and stalling tactics—thus any assertion of breach of Article 21 is fake and falsely synthesized.
- Distinguished between cases where delay is systemic versus when instigated by the accused; held engineered delay cannot be ground for bail.
- Discussed sentencing thresholds under Section 31A for various drugs, and critiqued the arbitrariness of multipliers versus commercial quantity; concluded that for extremely high multipliers, trials must be fast-tracked.
- Issued new comprehensive guidelines: prioritization of FSL testing, expedited investigation and prosecution, consequences for non-production/non-appearance, protocol for exemption from appearance, and steps against official/witness/defence delays, to ensure speedy trials in these high-quantity NDPS cases.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought bail on ground of parity, citing that several co-accused had already been granted bail.
- Argued for bail on merits (including FSL report allegedly showing ICE negative), prolonged custody, and delay in trial.
- Invoked Article 21 right to speedy trial as ground for bail.
Respondent (State of Punjab)
- Opposed bail, stating that petitioner is the principal accused from whom a huge quantity of heroin was recovered.
- Contended that trial delay is due to the intentional absence and evasive tactics of co-accused on bail.
- Submitted that delay is not attributable to State or prosecution.
Factual Background
On 29.10.2020, the police, acting on secret information, apprehended the petitioner (Manjit Singh alias Manna) and recovered 6 kg of methamphetamine (“ICE”) and 18 kg of heroin, with a further 3 kg heroin recovered during interrogation. The petitioner had multiple prior NDPS and UAPA-related antecedents. The present bail application—his fourth—was moved after some co-accused were granted bail, with main arguments being parity, prolonged custody, and delay in trial. Court record showed recurring non-appearance of co-accused on bail, leading to long adjournments; only 9 out of 78 prosecution witnesses had been examined at date of decision.
Statutory Analysis
- Interpreted Section 37 of the NDPS Act: emphasized stringent twin conditions required for bail when offence involves commercial quantity—prohibition unless the court is satisfied (i) the accused is not guilty and (ii) not likely to commit a further offence while on bail.
- Analysed Section 31A NDPS Act and its sentencing thresholds to create a pragmatic, non-arbitrary formula for running and prioritizing trials based on drug type and multiplier over commercial quantity.
- Examined the role of Article 21 right to speedy trial; explained it is engaged only if the delay is not a result of the accused/co-accused’s own actions.
- Discussed BNSS 2023 procedural rules about physical/virtual presence of accused; found current law does not permit trial in absence unless specific exemption is sought.
Procedural Innovations
- Introduced a comprehensive, multi-stakeholder protocol for handling trial delays in serious NDPS cases involving massive commercial quantities.
- Mandated automatic cancellation of bail of co-accused who, after being granted bail, repeatedly fail to appear without seeking proper exemption and undertaking to not dispute trial in their absence.
- Directed that, for defence counsels deliberately delaying trial, Legal Aid Counsel should be appointed to avoid further obstruction.
- Laid down a detailed structure for preventive and remedial action across investigative, prosecutorial, judicial, prison, and FSL arms whenever delay in trial occurs.
- Stated these orders/directions are to come into force from 01 January 2026.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
New procedural and pragmatic clarifications added; core law as to S.37 NDPS and Article 21 rights affirmed in line with Supreme Court rulings. - 📅 Time-Sensitive
Detailed scrutiny of time/delay in trials; formulated new timelines and prioritization for NDPS prosecution based on severity and quantity.