In cases involving commercial quantities under the NDPS Act, the mandatory twin conditions of Section 37 must be satisfied; the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 cannot be used to override or dilute these statutory requirements.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 35 of 2025, dated 7.3.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 22, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’) at Police Station Kangra, District Kangra, H.P.

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-68A-4199 on 06.03.2025. The driver identified himself as Rishabh. The person sitting beside the driver identified himself as Rohit, and the person sitting on the rear seats identified themselves as Abhishek and Sachin. The police searched the vehicle and recovered 803.88 grams of tramadol. The occupants of the vehicle could not produce any document for transporting the tramadol. The police seized tramadol and arrested the occupants of the vehicle. The police also recovered 283 tablets during the search of the house of Rohit on 07.03.2025. Rohit disclosed that he had purchased drugs from the petitioner. Rohit had talked to the petitioner between 06.02.2025 and 22.02.2025. He had paid Rs. 35,000/- in cash and Rs. 200/- by UPI to the petitioner. The police arrested the petitioner. The petitioner had filed Cr.MP(M) No.1262 of 2025, which was dismissed by the Court on 28.6.2025. The petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, but it was also dismissed. The matter was listed before the learned Trial Court for recording the statements of witnesses with effect from 05.03.2026 till 11.03.2026. The prosecution could only produce two witnesses out of 10 summoned by the Court. The petitioner is cooperating with the progress of the crime, but the police have failed to produce the witnesses. 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 were patrolling on 06.03. 2025. They intercepted a vehicle bearing registration HP-68A-4199. The driver of the vehicle identified himself as Rishabh, the person on the front seat identified himself as Rohit, and the person on the rear seat identified themselves as Abhishek and Sachin. The police searched the vehicle and recovered a bag containing ten boxes of Tramadol. The total weight of the capsules was found to be 803.88 grams. The occupants of the vehicle could not produce any documents for the possession of Tramadol. The police seized the drugs and arrested the occupants of the vehicles. The police recovered 283 tablets during the house search of Rohit on 07.03.2025. Rohit revealed on inquiry that he had purchased the drugs from the petitioner. He had talked to the petitioner on 6.02.2025, 08.02.2025, 21.02.2025 and 22.02.2025. He also paid Rs. 200/- to the petitioner by means of Unified Payments Interface (UPI). The police arrested the petitioner. He was found to be the owner of Ravi Medicos. The petitioner revealed that his license was cancelled for possessing prohibited drugs. As per the result of the analysis, the capsules were found to be Tramadol. The petitioner is involved in selling narcotics in the state of HP, which is adversely affecting society. He would indulge in the commission of a similar offence if released on bail. The police have filed the charge sheet before the Court. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

4. I have heard Mr Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms Swati Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 29.03.2025. More than one year has elapsed since the petitioner's arrest. The prosecution has only examined two witnesses, and the petitioner's right to speedy trial is being violated. Hence, he prayed tha