The Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed that prolonged pre-trial detention under the NDPS Act cannot be justified when trial delays are not attributable to the accused, thereby reinforcing the primacy of the constitutional right to a speedy trial over statutory bail restrictions.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Amandeep Singh, filed a second petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 439 CrPC) seeking regular bail pending trial in FIR No. 58 dated 10.07.2024. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 21(c), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for alleged possession of heroin.
Key Facts
- 10.07.2024: Co-accused Vishal Singh and Amandeep Singh were apprehended with 502 g and 479 g of heroin respectively, without a valid licence.
- The petitioner’s implication rests solely on disclosure statements made by the co-accused during investigation; no contraband was recovered from him.
- 17.03.2026: The petitioner’s earlier bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
- 17.07.2026: Co-accused Vishal Singh was granted regular bail by this Court (order in CRM-M-29842-2026).
- The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 10.07.2024, amounting to more than two years of detention.
- Out of fifteen prosecution witnesses listed, only one has been examined to date.
Procedural History
- 10.07.2024: FIR No. 58 registered at Police Station Valtoha, District Tarn Taran.
- 17.03.2026: Earlier bail petition dismissed as withdrawn.
- 27.07.2026: Second bail petition filed under Section 483 B.N.S. 2023; judgment delivered on the same date.
Parties' Positions
- Petitioner: Claims innocence, argues lack of physical evidence, invokes parity with Vishal Singh’s bail, and contends that trial delay is solely the prosecution’s fault, violating Article 21.
- State: Relied on the seriousness of the NDPS offences and the stringent bail regime under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, seeking to deny bail.
Relief Sought
The petitioner prayed for regular bail pending trial, subject to furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether, in an NDPS case, the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21 overrides the restrictive bail provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act when the delay in trial is not attributable to the accused.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- No heroin was recovered from the petitioner; his alleged involvement is based only on co-accused statements.
- Citing the principle of parity, the petitioner argued that Vishal Singh, who faced identical charges, was granted regular bail on 17.07.2026; therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the same relief.
- Emphasised that the prolonged pre-trial detention infringes Article 21, as recognised in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar and subsequent Supreme Court decisions.
- Submitted that the delay is wholly attributable to the prosecution and systemic factors, not to any conduct of the petitioner.
For the Respondent
- Asserted that offences under the NDPS Act are grave, warranting the stringent bail regime of Section 37.
- Contended that the petitioner’s alleged possession of a commercial quantity of heroin justifies denial of bail irrespective of trial delay.
- Relied on the statutory language of Section 37 to argue that bail should be denied unless the accused is able to furnish a bond of a specified amount, which was not presented.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by reaffirming that the right to a speedy trial is an essential facet of Article 21, citing Hussainara Khatoon and later judgments such as Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) and Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement (2026). It observed that the constitutional guarantee is not limited by the nature of the offence and that prolonged incarceration without substantive trial progress amounts to punitive detention, contrary to constitutional ethos.
"the right to a speedy trial, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence."
The Court examined the statutory framework of the NDPS Act, noting that while Section 37 imposes strict bail conditions, it cannot be applied in a vacuum. The Court referenced Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023), which held that a literal interpretation of Section 37 divorced from constitutional values would sanction punitive pre-trial detention. The Court further highlighted that Section 36 empowers the government to constitute Special Courts to ensure speedy disposal, and Section 436A CrPC applies even to special statutes, providing a safeguard against indefinite detention.
The analysis turned to the factual matrix: the petitioner had been in custody for over two years, only one prosecution witness had been examined, and the delay was traced to systemic deficiencies - repeated adjournments, non-production of witnesses, and investigative lag. The Court found no evidence that the petitioner contributed to the delay. Moreover, the grant of regular bail to co-accused Vishal Singh established a clear case of parity; denying bail to the petitioner would amount to arbitrary discrimination.
Balancing the societal interest in effective prosecution against the individual’s liberty, the Court concluded that where the State fails to provide the infrastructure for speedy trial, the constitutional mandate of Article 21 prevails. Consequently, the Court was empowered to grant regular bail, subject to appropriate conditions to safeguard the trial process.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The Court granted regular bail to Amandeep Singh, subject to the petitioner furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds, and imposed the following conditions: (i) no inducement or threat to witnesses; (ii) no tampering with evidence or intimidation of prosecution witnesses; (iii) no departure from India without prior permission of the trial court; (iv) verification of residential addresses within 48 hours; (v) disclosure of PAN, Aadhaar, bank details and immovable property particulars; (vi) written intimation of any change in address or mobile number within seven days; (vii) no commission of a similar offence and mandatory presence before the trial court on all dates. Non-compliance may lead to cancellation of bail.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bail Can Be Granted Despite NDPS Stringency
Practitioners must now foreground trial delay as a decisive factor, even in NDPS matters, and demonstrate that the delay is not attributable to the accused. Citing parity with co-accused bail orders can strengthen the argument.
Constitutional Right Trumps Section 37 When Delay Is Inordinate
- Courts will scrutinise the number of witnesses examined, adjournment frequency, and systemic bottlenecks.
- Evidence of state-induced delay can overturn the presumption of bail denial under Section 37.
- Lawyers should gather detailed trial-progress records to establish inordinate delay.
Procedural Safeguards Remain Stringent
While bail may be granted, the conditions imposed under Section 436A CrPC and the NDPS Act will be strictly enforced. Compliance with address verification, financial disclosures, and non-interference with witnesses is essential to avoid cancellation.
