Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1246

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Sujeet alias Sujit - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1417 of 2025
Decided On : 23-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M/s Rakesh Chaudhary and Panku Chaudhary, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

Inordinate trial delay by prosecution violates Article 21 speedy trial right, entitling bail in NDPS commercial quantity cases despite Section 37 rigours.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20 and 37 - Bail application - Accused in custody for over two years and one month - Prosecution cited sixteen witnesses, nine examined, four remaining summoned but trial delayed by adjournments sought despite witnesses appearing - Violation of right to speedy trial under Article 21 of Constitution - Rigours of Section 37 overridden by fundamental right where prosecution fails to ensure expeditious trial - Bail granted subject to conditions. (Paras 1, 9, 10, 19)

(B) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to speedy trial - Fundamental right implicit in personal liberty, applicable from arrest through trial - Inordinate delay entitles accused to bail even in serious offences - State cannot oppose bail citing offence gravity if lacking wherewithal for speedy trial - Prolonged pre-trial detention without trial conclusion unjustifiable. (Paras 7, 10, 11, 17)

(C) Criminal Procedure - Bail discretion - Courts to consider nature of accusation, evidence, punishment severity, trial progress, delay causes, risk of witness tampering - Grant not mechanical but based on prima facie assessment and judicious exercise. (Para 7)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner arrested with commercial quantity of charas in backpack while sleeping on bus seats during police check. Charge sheet filed, charges framed, trial ongoing with significant delay attributed to prosecution not producing witnesses or seeking adjournments when they appeared.

Findings of Court:
Petition allowed. Accused directed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to conditions including not influencing witnesses, attending all hearings, not leaving address without intimation, surrendering passport if any, providing mobile/social media contacts.

Issues: Whether inordinate trial delay violates right to speedy trial entitling bail despite Section 37 NDPS; impact of prosecution-caused delays on bail opposition.

Ratio Decidendi: Prosecution's failure to expeditiously conclude trial by seeking adjournments infringes Article 21 speedy trial right, warranting bail grant overriding NDPS Section 37 where accused detained over two years without trial fag end justification.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner arrested for possessing commercial quantity charas under ndps. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner's speedy trial claim opposed by state's ndps section 37. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. bail requires judicious application of supreme court principles. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. prosecution delays infringe right to speedy trial. (Para 9 , 10)
5. article 21 mandates speedy trial; undue delay warrants bail. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
6. bail granted due to speedy trial violation overriding ndps. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)

Judgment :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 62 of 2023, dated 28.04.2023, registered at Police Station Barmana, District Bilaspur, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS). It has been asserted that the police have filed a charge sheet before the learned Trial Court on 28.06.2023. The charges were framed on 04.12.2023. The prosecution has cited sixteen witnesses, and the statements of nine witnesses have been recorded so far. The petitioner has been behind the bars for the last two years and one month. There is an inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial, which violates the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on nakabandi duty on 28.04.2023. A bus bearing registration No. PB 65AT-1691 came from Salapar at 2.05 PM. The police checked the bus in the presence of the conductor. The petitioner was sleeping on seats No. 38, 39 and 40. He had kept a backpack on his lap. The police woke him up. He got frightened after seeing the police and tried to conceal the bag. He identified himself as Sujeet (the present petitioner). The police checked the backpack and found 1.144 kgs of charas. The police seized the charas and arrested the petitioner. The charas was sent to SFSL Junga, and as per the report, it was confirmed to be an extract of cannabis and a sample of charas. Only four witnesses are to be examined, who have been summoned for 28.07.2025. Hence, the status report.

3. I have heard Mr Rakesh Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State.

4. Mr Rakesh Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. The prosecution has not completed the evidence, and the petitioners' right to a speedy trial is being violated; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/ State, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of a commercial quantity of charas, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present case. The petitioner has not satisfied the twin conditions laid down under of the NDPS Act. Only four witnesses are to be examined, and the trial is at its fag end. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

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

7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P. , (2025) 7 SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380: -

(i) Broad principles for the grant of bail

56. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elab- orating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that should be con- sidered while granting bail, which are extracted as un- der: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9)

“7. It is t