The fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India can override the statutory bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in cases involving prolonged pretrial incarceration where the trial progress is unreasonably slow and not attributable to the accused.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL):

1. Present 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.143 dated 10.12.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21(c), 27-A, 29, 61, 95 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station “D” Division, Amritsar.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 4 Kgs of heroin and ₹9 lakhs of drug money, and the petitioner has been nominated, in this case, on the disclosure of co-accused Rachhpal Singh.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner was initially arrested on 13.12.2023. 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 has further iterated that sole basis to array the petitioner as an accused is the disclosure statement of co-accused, namely Rachhpal Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that out of total 23 prosecution witnesses only three have been examined till date. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for about 1 year, 10 months and 19 days. 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 barred 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 06.11.2025 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 13.12.2023 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan qua the petitioner was presented on 10.04.2024. Total 23 prosecution witnesses have been cited and only three have been examined till date. The petitioner has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Rachhpal Singh. 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. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to a judgment passed by this Court in Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab, passed in CRM-M-65094-2024 (2025: PHHC:004198), wherein, after relying upon the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592; Smt.Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu versus State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau, 2024 INSC 290; State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.’, 2022 (1) RCR (Criminal) 762; and Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023, decided on 17.05.2023, has held thus:

“6.3 It is a well established principle of law that a confession made by a coaccusedunder Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very weak piece of evidence. Such statement(