The court established that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and prolonged pre-trial incarceration justifies the grant of bail, even in serious offences under the NDPS Act, especially when the prosecution's case relies upon inadmissible disclosure statements.

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Bail petitioner Sunil Kumar, who is behind bars since 22.09.2025, has approached this Court by way of present petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita , for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.22 of 2025, dated 24.05.2025, registered at Police Station Mcleodganj, Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 20 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short “ND & PS Act”).

________________________________________________________

2. Pursuant to order dated 08.04.2026, respondent-State has filed status report and ASI Satinder Singh has come present with record. Record perused and returned.

3. Close security of record/status report reveals that on 22.11.2025, police allegedly recovered 1.24 grams Kg of charas/cannabis from co-accused Kalu Ram in Mcleodganj, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, who allegedly disclosed to the police that he had purchased contraband recovered from the bail-petitioner for a sum of Rs.49,000/-, which was paid through cheque. On the basis of afore disclosure statement made by co-accused Kalu Ram, from whose conscious possession the commercial quantity of contraband came to be recovered, petitioner came to be arrested on 20.09.2025 and since then, he is behind bars. Since challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail-petitioner, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail.

4. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent court of law, 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. Mr. Kahol, states that though in past, no case stands registered against the bail-petitioner, but having taken note of the fact that quantity of contraband sold by the bail-petitioner to main accused Kalu Ram, this Court can easily infer that bail-petitioner is a drug peddler, who in the event of his being enlarged on bail, may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities. He further states that since challan stands filed in the competent Court of law, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail on account of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial, deserves outright rejection.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that commercial quantity of contraband was never recovered from conscious possession of the bail petitioner, rather same was recovered from the conscious possession of Kalu Ram, who allegedly disclosed to the police that he had purchased contraband from the present bail-petitioner for a sum of Rs.49,000/-. Though having taken note of the fact that cheque amounting to Rs. 49,000/- was issued by Kalu Ram to the bail petitioner, police has arrested the bail-petitioner under Section 29 of ND & PS Act, but question, which needs to be determined at this stage, is “whether the petitioner could have been arrested or implicated in case merely on the basis of disclosure statement made by the co accused?”

6. Besides above, there is another aspect of the matter that FIR in the case at hand was registered approximately one year back, but till date, prosecution evidence has not commenced. Prosecution proposes to examine 38 w