Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 369

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Chhotu Lal - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No.3025 of 2025
Decided On : 24-02-2026

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Yadvinder Gupta & Mr. Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General

In NDPS commercial quantity cases, prolonged incarceration over two years due to inordinate trial delay violates Article 21 speedy trial right; bail grantable despite Section 37 if guilt unproven and conditions imposed.

Headnote:(A) NDPS Act, 1985 - Sections 20 and 37 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 483 - Bail in case of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband - Petitioner in custody for over two years since apprehension - Charge sheet filed, trial commenced but only two out of twelve prosecution witnesses examined despite passage of time - Inordinate delay in trial conclusion likely - Prolonged pre-trial detention violates right to speedy trial under Article 21 of Constitution - Section 37 rigours not absolute bar; court may grant bail after hearing public prosecutor if satisfied on not guilty and no re-offending likelihood, especially with delay - No prior criminal record - Bail granted subject to furnishing personal bond with sureties and stringent conditions. (Paras 3,7-10,18-24)

(B) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Speedy trial fundamental right implicit therein - Delay in trial, particularly in special statutes with stringent bail provisions, cannot justify indefinite incarceration amounting to pre-trial punishment - Applies even to serious offences; more rigour demands quicker adjudication - Presumption of innocence till guilt proved. (Paras 8,11-19,20-23)

(C) Bail considerations - Gravity of offence alone not decisive; balance competing factors including detention period, trial progress, risk of absconding met by conditions - Object to secure attendance, not punish. (Paras 20-23)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner apprehended while sitting alone with bag containing commercial quantity of contraband; no explanation for possession; independent witnesses associated; in custody over two years; prior bail applications withdrawn; trial delayed with minimal witness examination; claim of false implication due to injury at time.

Findings of Court:
Commercial quantity recovered from conscious possession per prosecution material; however, delay grounds prevail; enlargement on bail ordered with conditions to prevent misuse, flight or tampering.

Issues: Whether bail grantable in commercial quantity case under Section 37 despite gravity, on grounds of trial delay and prolonged custody; interplay of statutory rigours with constitutional speedy trial right; sufficiency of prosecution evidence at bail stage.

Ratio Decidendi: Inordinate trial delay and over two years' incarceration override Section 37 twin conditions where guilt unproven, no prior record, and early conclusion unlikely; violates Article 21; conditional liberty preferred over indefinite detention.

Result: Petition allowed; petitioner enlarged on bail subject to personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties, and conditions including attendance at trial, no tampering, no threats, no leaving territory without permission; liberty misuse invites cancellation.

Table of Content
1. commercial quantity charas recovered from petitioner. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. false implication and trial delay claimed. (Para 4 , 5)
3. state opposes citing offence gravity, section 37. (Para 6)
4. trial delay exceeds two years, violates article 21. (Para 7 , 8)
5. section 37 not absolute bar to bail. (Para 9 , 10)
6. speedy trial is fundamental right under article 21. (Para 11 , 16 , 20)
7. ndps bail granted due to trial delay precedents. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
8. state cites precedents against delay ground. (Para 15 , 17)
9. distinguishes precedents; section 37 conditions satisfied. (Para 18 , 19)
10. bail not punishment; balance competing factors. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
11. bail granted subject to stringent conditions. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)

JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.

Bail petitioner namely, Chhotu Lal, who is behind the bars since 17.12.2023, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 137 of 2023, dated 17.12.2023, under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, registered at police Station, Banjar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Respondent-State has filed status report and HC Vipin Kumar has come present with the record. Record perused and returned.

3. Close scrutiny of the status report/record reveals that on 17.12.2023, at 11.30 AM, patrolling party headed by SI/SHO Ram Lal after having found one person sitting alone near PWD Rest House, Sojha on Jalori Jot road, stopped its vehicle. Since he got perplexed and made an attempt to flee from the spot, police deemed it necessary to cause his personal search as well as of his belongings. Allegedly, after associating independent witnesses, police recovered 3.01 Kg of charas from the bag being carried by the person, namely Chhotu Lal i.e., present petitioner herein. Since, no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua possession of aforesaid commercial quantity of contraband, police after having completed necessary codal formalities, lodged the FIR, as detailed hereinabove and since then, bail petitioner is behind the bars. Since charge sheet stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial.

4. Besides above, it has been further submitted at the behest of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the present case because no contraband was ever recovered from his bag, rather at the relevant time, he, on account of his injury, was sitting alone at the place of recovery.

5. Prior to filing the petition at hand, petitioner had filed petitions for grant of bail on three occasions, but the same were withdrawn with liberty to file afresh. Since no substantial progress has been made in the trial and there is every likelihood of further delay in conclusion of trial, petitioner, whose health is not stated to be good, has again approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

6. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent court of law, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency, rather needs to be dealt with in accordance with law. Mr. Kahol, states that otherwise on account of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, petitioner is not entitled to bail in terms of Section 37 of the Act. Mr. Kahol, states that as per own case of the petitioner, he is getting appropriate medical treatment in the hospital and as such, prayer, if any, made on medical grounds for enlargement on bail cannot be considered. Mr. Kahol, further states that since trial has already commenced and two prosecution witnesses have been examined, plea of