The statutory rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not preclude the grant of bail when there is significant, unjustified delay in the trial, as the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution overrides the statutory embargo on bail.

211

---

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present 4th petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.0070 dated 28.03.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Julana, District Jind, Haryana.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that the petitioner was apprehended by the police upon suspicion, while he was coming Bullet motorcycle No.HR-21N-6884. Upon having conducted search thereof, recovery of 50.300 kilograms of ganja was allegedly effected from him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 28.03.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 1 year. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the 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 restricted by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 19.03.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.

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 28.03.2024, whereinafter, investigation was carried out and the challan was presented on 13.09.2024. Total 21 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but only 1 has been examined till date. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1. Indubitably, the present petition is the 4th attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.01.2026. Keeping in view the entire factual milieu of the case in hand and extended incarceration of the petitioner for a period of about 1 year, pace of the trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRA-S-2332-2023 titled as Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another; relevant whereof reads as under:

“10. As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following principles emerge:

I. Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof.

II. Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-prosecution or earlier petition was dismissed on merits.

III. For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially