Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1832

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Paramjeet - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.M.P.(M) No.2643 of 2025
Decided On : 12-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr Vijender Katoch, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.

In NDPS case, regular bail granted due to one-year pre-trial custody and trial delay violating Article 21 speedy trial right, despite antecedents; proportionality applied to quantity, State cannot oppose solely on offence gravity.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 21 - Bail - Regular bail in NDPS case - Despite recovery of commercial quantity of heroin from house where petitioner present, prior conviction and pending cases, bail granted as petitioner undergone about one year custody, trial delayed with only three of 24 witnesses examined, violating right to speedy trial under Article 21 - Prolonged pre-trial detention unjustified where prosecution fails to ensure expeditious trial - Criminal antecedents not absolute bar when incarceration substantial and principle of proportionality applied to small quantity recovered - State cannot oppose bail solely on seriousness of offence absent speedy trial wherewithal. (Paras 8-23)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner sought regular bail in case registered for offence under Section 21 NDPS Act following police raid on house based on secret information, recovering 11.63 grams heroin and cash; petitioner arrested same day. Prosecution highlighted prior conviction for similar offence and four pending FIRs; trial progressed slowly post charge-sheet.

Findings of Court:
Petition allowed; petitioner to be released on bail in sum 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 details.

Issues: Whether bail grantable in NDPS case despite criminal history and recovery of contraband; impact of trial delay and custody period on bail entitlement under Article 21.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts must consider nature of accusation, evidence, punishment severity, antecedents, repetition likelihood, but paramount is right to speedy trial; inordinate delay entitles bail even in stringent laws; antecedents yield to prolonged detention infringing personal liberty.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. ndps bail petition for alleged heroin possession (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties contend on innocence, antecedents, trial delay (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. bail governed by supreme court parameters (Para 8 , 9)
4. prima facie involvement but substantial custody undergone (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. speedy trial right under article 21 mandates bail (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. antecedents not bar despite long incarceration (Para 21)
7. bail granted on proportionality and delay (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 148/2024 dated 06.12.2024, registered at Police Station, Damtal, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police received information that the petitioner was selling heroin at the residence of her daughter-in-law, and a huge quantity of heroin could be recovered by searching the house. The police searched the house after completing the formalities and recovered 11.63 grams of heroin and Rs.40,000/- in cash. The petitioner is innocent, and she was falsely implicated. No material was recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner is the sole earner of the family, and her family would suffer from her continued incarceration. The petitioner is a permanent resident of the State of Punjab, and there are no chances of her absconding. She would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police were on patrolling duty on 06.12.2024. They received secret information at 2:45 pm that the petitioner was selling heroin in her daughter-in-law’s house, and a huge quantity of heroin would be recovered by searching the house. The police reduced the information into writing and sent it to the SDPO, Indora. The police associated Lal Bahadur and Sanju and went to the house where the petitioner was present. The police searched the house and recovered one polythene envelope containing 11.63 grams of heroin and Rs.40,000/-. The police seized the heroin and the currency notes and arrested the petitioner. The heroin was sent to SFSL and was confirmed to be Diacetylmorphine (heroin) after the analysis. FIR No. 154 of 2017, FIR No. 289 of 2017, FIR No. 89 of 2018 and FIR N0. 100 of 2020 are pending against the petitioner. The petitioner was convicted in FIR No. 29 of 2022 for possessing 6.40 grams of heroin. She was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of her release on bail. The police filed the charge sheet before the Court, and the matter is listed for recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses on 31.12.2025. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Vijender Katoch, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

5. Mr Vijender Katoch, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and she was falsely implicated. More than one year has elapsed since her arrest. The prosecution has failed to complete the evidence. The petitioner has undergone a substantial part of the imprisonment. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was found to be involved in the commission of a similar offence in the past. She would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of her release on bail. She was convicted in one FIR, and five FIR’s are pending against her. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submiss