1. Bail petition in NDPS Act case — Recovery of commercial quantity of charas. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 5519
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Anku – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 1807 of 2026
Important Points
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right that overrides the stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act; failure to conclude trial within a court-mandated timeframe entitles the accused to bail.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Right to Speedy Trial - Bail - Violation of the right to a speedy trial, particularly when a trial is not concluded within the timeframe specifically directed by the Supreme Court, entitles the accused to bail. (Para 8)
(B) NDPS Act - Section 37 - Rigours of Section 37 - The violation of the right to a speedy trial overrides the stringent requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and an accused cannot be kept behind bars indefinitely. (Para 9)
Issues: Whether the violation of the right to a speedy trial entitles the petitioner to bail despite the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
(B) NDPS Act - Section 37 - Rigours of Section 37 - The violation of the right to a speedy trial overrides the stringent requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and an accused cannot be kept behind bars indefinitely. (Para 9)
Issues: Whether the violation of the right to a speedy trial entitles the petitioner to bail despite the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary
For the Respondents: Jitender Sharma
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary
For the Respondents: Jitender Sharma
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued violation of right to speedy trial; State opposed citing rigours of Section 37, NDPS Act. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. Trial not concluded despite Supreme Court direction; petitioner's right to speedy trial violated. (Para 8 , 10 )
4. Petition allowed; petitioner ordered to be released on bail on terms imposed by trial court. (Para 11 )
5. Does violation of right to speedy trial override the rigours of Section 37, NDPS Act?
Yes. The Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim v. State held that violation of right to speedy trial overrides Section 37, NDPS Act, and the accused cannot be kept behind bars indefinitely. (Para 8 , 10 )
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking regular bail in FIR No. 250 of 2024 dated 08.11.2024 registered at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short “NDPS Act”), 1985.1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police had set up a naka on 07.11.2024 at Jachh near HRTC workshop, Jassaur. They intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-73- 5581 at about 07:30 p.m. They found 3 kg 400 grams of charas during the search of the vehicle. The police arrested the occupants. These allegations are false. There is no material to connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime. The petitioner was arrested after 22 days of the lodging of the FIR. The petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition which was registered as Cr. M.P. (M) No. 1159 of 2025 titled Anku versus State and was dismissed by the Court on 28.06.2025. The petitioner filed an SLP (Criminal) No. 758 of 2026, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 16.02.2026 with a direction to conclude the trial within 6 months from the date of receipt of the order and the petitioner was given liberty to revive his application for bail in case the trial was not concluded within 6 months. The petitioner has remained in custody for more than 1 year and 9 months. The prosecution has not completed the evidence against the petitioner, which violates the petitioner's right to a speedy trial. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party signalled the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-73-5581 on 07.11.2024 to stop during Nakka. The driver turned his vehicle towards Nurpur; however, the vehicle stalled. The driver ran away from the spot. The police ran after the driver but could not apprehend him. The police searched the vehicle and recovered 3.400 grams of cannabis concealed in sacks of maize and peas. The police seized the cannabis and conducted the investigation. The police checked the CCTV footage and interrogated the owner of the vehicle, who revealed that her son, Vipin Kumar, was driving the vehicle at the time of the incident. The petitioner, Anku, had loaded 36 bags of maize and peas into the vehicle. The police checked the call detail records and found that Vipin Kumar and Anku were in touch with each other. The vehicle was driven on a route where no entry regarding its movement would be recorded. The police arrested Anku. Cannabis was sent to SFSL, Junga, and it was found to be a sample of charas after analysis. The sacks were released by Pammi, the brother of Anku. Bhupinder @ Vipin Kumar was arrested on 01.03.2025. F.I.R. No. 231 of 2019, dated 21.06.2019 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 120B IPC at Police Station Pinjore, District Panchkulla, Haryana and F.I.R. No. 55 of 2024, dated 11.03.2024 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of NDPS Act at Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P. were registered against the petitioner. The prosecution has cited 43 witnesses, out of whom statements of 41 witnesses have been recorded, and the matter is listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 26.10.2026. Hence, the status report.
I have heard Mr Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.
Mr Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The learned Trial Court failed to complete the evidence despite th
