The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 can justify bail in drug cases despite stringent NDPS Act provisions, when trial delays are unreasonable.

JUDGMENT :

SUMEET GOEL, J.

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.16 dated 7.3.2025, under Sections 21 (a), 22(b), 27, 61 and 85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( Section 22 -C of NDPS Act added later on), registered at Police Station Sadiq, District Faridkot.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with his co-accused, namely, Manpreet Singh were apprehended by the police upon suspicion, while they were attempted to flee upon seeing the police party. Upon having conducted search thereof, recovery of 30 loose intoxicant tablets of etizolam having weight of 3.15 grams and 5 grams of heroin, which is marginally above from the commercial quantity, has been allegedly effected from the co-accused, namely, Manpreet Singh.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 8.3.2025. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner was granted the concession of interim regular bail on 3.4.2025 whereinafter, he surrendered on 25.7.2025 & the said concession of bail was not misused by him. Learned counsel has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has iterated that the contraband alleged to have been recovered from the co-accused of the petitioner is 3.15 grams of intoxicants tablets and 5 grams of Heroin, which is marginally above the threshold limit of non-commercial quantity specified in the notification issued under the NDPS Act. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 11.11.2025. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed.

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 8.3.2025 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 27.6.2025. Total 16 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none has been examined till date. It is, thus, indubitable that conclusion of the trial will take long. It is not in dispute that the contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner is 3.15 grams of intoxicants tablets and 5 grams of Heroin, which is marginally above the threshold limit of non-commercial quantity. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the orders passed by this Court in Rajdev Giri versus State of Punjab , CRM-M-44898-2019, decided on 18.09.2020; Rahish versus State of Haryana , CRM-M-36498-2020, decided on 11.11.2020; Karambir versus State of Haryana , CRM-M- 31820-2019, decided on 28.08.2019: Jagjit Singh @ Jagga Gill versus State of Punjab , CRM-M-41242-2019, decided on 27.02.2020 and Baljit Kaur @ Baljito versus State of Punjab , CRM-M-12849-2020, decided on 04.06.2020, wherein accused were enlarged on bail in cases where the alleged recovery was slightly more than the quantity prescribed for non- commercial category under the NDPS Act. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appr