In NDPS cases with intermediate contraband quantity, over one-year incarceration and trial delay violate Article 21 speedy trial right, entitling bail despite antecedents as State cannot oppose on crime gravity alone.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 13 of 2025, dated 15.01.2025, registered at Police Station Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police were on patrolling duty on 15.01.2025. They saw the petitioner carrying a backpack coming from Dadnu. He tried to run away after seeing the police. The police apprehended him, and the petitioner identified himself as Raman Kumar (present petitioner), in the presence of an independent witness. The police checked the backpack and recovered heroin from it. Police arrested the petitioner and seized the heroin. The allegations made against the petitioner are false. The quantity of heroin stated to have been recovered from the possession of the accused is an intermediate quantity, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police were on patrolling duty on 15.01.2025. They saw the petitioner coming from Dadnu towards Badol at about 5.25 P.M. The petitioner tried to run away after seeing the police. The police apprehended the petitioner, and he identified himself as Raman Kumar in the presence of an independent witness. The police checked the backpack and recovered 10 grams of heroin. The police arrested the petitioner and seized the heroin. Heroin was sent to the SFSL, Junga and as per the report, it was found to be a sample of Diacetylmorphine (heroin). FIR Nos. 71 of 2018, 23 of 2019, 135 of 2019 and 43 of 2024 are pending against the petitioner. Petitioner would indulge in the commission of similar offences in case of his release on bail. A charge sheet was filed before the learned Trial Court on 10.03.2025, and the matter was listed for the recording of statements of the witnesses on 28.02.2026. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Chetan Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Chetan Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner was arrested on 15.01.2025, and more than one year has lapsed since then. The prosecution has failed to complete the evidence, and the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions that the Court may impose; hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed, and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was involved in the commission of a similar offence, and he is likely to indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. Sta