The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 which can override the restrictive bail provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act when the accused has suffered prolonged pre-trial incarceration due to unjustifiable trial delays.

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present 3rd 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.113 dated 28.7.2022, registered for the offences punishable under Section 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) (Charges were framed under Sections 22(b) and 22(c) of NDPS Act), at Police Station Nakodar Sadar, District Jalandhar Rural.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 30 intoxicant tablets (having total 3.3 grams of buprenophine) and 155 intoxicant capsules (having total 20.77 grams of etizolam) allegedly recovered from the petitioner on 28.7.2022 while he was walking on foot and was apprehended by the police on suspicion.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner was arrested on 28.7.2022 and released on interim bail on 28.9.2022. Subsequently, after receiving report from FSL, on presentation of challan, he was taken into custody on 29.8.2023 and since then he is in continuous custody. 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 about 2 years and 9 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has filed status report in Court today. The same be kept on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said status report, 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 23.3.2026 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 is in continuous custody since 29.8.2023, when challan was presented. Total 7 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which 3 have been examined and 2 have been given up 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 3rd attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The first bail plea preferred by the petitioner was withdrawn on 26.4.2024 and the second was withdrawn on 21.1.2025. However, keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially extended incarceration of the petitioner and slao 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