Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 52

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Naveen Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 2984 of 2025
Decided On : 02-03-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr R.S. Chandel, Advocate
For the Respondent/State:Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General

Prolonged trial delay in NDPS intermediate quantity case violates speedy trial right under Article 21, constituting change in circumstances for successive bail despite prior rejections and antecedents.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 18 - Bail application - Intermediate quantity of opium (86 grams with 2.04% morphine) - Successive bail petitions - Earlier petitions dismissed - Subsequent petition maintainable only on substantial change in circumstances - Prolonged trial delay (only 3 of 21 witnesses examined after nearly one year from FIR, piecemeal examination contrary to Supreme Court directives) constitutes change warranting bail - Rigours of Section 37 inapplicable - Criminal antecedents not bar to bail amid inordinate delay and right to speedy trial. (Paras 8-16, 26-27)

(B) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to speedy trial - Fundamental right implicit in personal liberty - When prosecution and court fail to ensure expeditious trial, seriousness of offence no ground to deny bail - Accused presumed innocent; unending pre-trial detention impermissible - Delay infringes constitutional right, entitling release on bail. (Paras 15-25)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner apprehended at night carrying backpack; 86 grams opium recovered. Arrested; charge sheet filed citing 21 witnesses. Two prior bail petitions dismissed. Trial delayed with piecemeal witness examination; listed for PW9 and PW11/12 nearly 11 months post-FIR.

Findings of Court:
Petition allowed; released on bail of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety of like amount subject to conditions: no witness intimidation, attend all hearings, no unexplained absence, surrender passport if any, provide contact details. Violation invites cancellation.

Issues: Maintainability of successive bail absent change in circumstances? Does prolonged trial delay violate speedy trial right entitling bail? Relevance of criminal antecedents?

Ratio Decidendi: Courts must examine prior bail rejections for successive applications; here, inordinate trial delay (violation of Article 21 speedy trial right) and failure to summon witnesses en masse constitute substantial change justifying bail despite NDPS offence gravity and antecedents.

Result: Bail petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner apprehended with 86g intermediate opium quantity. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. trial delay claimed as change; prior bails rejected. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. successive bails require material change in circumstances. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. piecemeal trial delays violate speedy trial right. (Para 14 , 15)
5. inordinate trial delay infringes article 21 speedy trial. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
6. antecedents not bar after prolonged incarceration. (Para 27)
7. bail granted with conditions despite ndps charge. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No.10 of 2025 dated 29.03.2025, registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Khairi, District Chamba, H.P.

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police had set up a nakka on 29.03.2025. They saw the petitioner carrying a backpack at about 11.25 PM. The petitioner got frightened after seeing the police and started walking with fast speed. The police apprehended the petitioner and, on search, recovered 86 grams of opium from the backpack. The police arrested the petitioner and seized the opium. As per the result of the analysis, the sample was found to contain morphine, codeine, thebaine, papaverine, narcotine and meconic acid. The percentage of morphine in the exhibit was found to be 2.04% w/w. The police have filed the charge sheet before the Court. The petitioner had earlier filed Cr.MP(M) No. 1388 of 2025 and Cr.MP(M) No. 219 of 2025, which were dismissed vide orders dated 26.11.2025 and 21.07.2025. The prosecution has failed to complete the evidence, and this constitutes a change in circumstances. Therefore, 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 had set up a nakka on 29.03.2025. They saw the petitioner carrying a backpack at 11:25 p.m. The petitioner got frightened after seeing the police and started walking briskly. The police became suspicious and called him; however, the petitioner continued to walk. The police apprehended him and searched the backpack in the presence of Nikku Ram, an independent witness. The police recovered 86 grams of opium from the backpack. The petitioner identified himself as Naveen Kumar. The police arrested the petitioner and seized the opium. The opium was sent to SFSL Junga, and as per the result of analysis, Morphine, Codeine, Thebaine, Papaverine, Narcotine and Meconic acid were found in it, which are active constituents of opium (coagulated juice of opium poppy). The percentage of morphine in the exhibit was found to be 2.04% w/w. The police prepared the final report and submitted it before the Court. The police have cited 21 witnesses. Three witnesses have been examined, and the matter was listed for examination of PWs 9 and 11 on 26.02.2026. FIR Nos. 54 of 2023, 21 of 2024, 38 of and 149 of are pending against the petitioner. The petitioner has committed a heinous crime, and there is every possibility of his conviction. He would indulge in the commission of similar offences in case of his release on bail. The consumption of narcotics is adversely affecting the young generation of society, and no leniency should be shown to the petitioner. The petitioner would abscond in case of his release on bail. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

4. I have heard Mr R.S. Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

5. Mr R.S. Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. The prosecution has failed to complete the evidence despite the lapse of about one year.