The strict rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act for granting bail is diluted when the accused has undergone long pre-trial incarceration and the trial is delayed, thereby infringing upon the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

---

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present 7th petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.124 dated 21.3.2022, under Sections 20/20-C/27-A/29/61/85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Hansi Sadar, Police District Hansi, District Hisar.

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 150 grams of ganja, and the petitioner has been nominated, in this case, on the disclosure of co-accused Surender, Ram Rati and Saroj.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 22.7.2022. 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 Surender, Ram Rati and Saroj. Learned counsel has further argued that all the co-accused have granted the concession of regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 3 years and 7 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has filed reply by way of affidavit of Ravinder Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hansi in Court today. The same be kept on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 29.3.2026 in the 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 22.7.2022 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan qua him was presented on 14.9.2022. Total 35 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which 27 have been examined whereas 01 has been given up 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- Surender, Ram Rati and Saroj from whom 150 grams of ganja was allegedly recovered. As per the prosecution version, there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the contraband except for the said disclosure statement. It is pertinent to note that such disclosure statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence hold limited evidentiary value and cannot be sole basis for implicating the petitioner. The reliance on this unsubstantiated statement raises serious doubts about the fairness and objectivity of the investigation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not present at the spot. The veracity and weightage required to be attached to the disclosure statement made by the co-accused will be fully tested at the time of trial. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which 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 apposit