Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 9296

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No.17144 of 2026

Date of decision : 7.4.2026

Gurtej Singh @ Vicky ………….Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab …….Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present: Mr. G.S. Hundal, Advocate and
Mr. Vikramjeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Gaurav Gurcharan S. Rai, Senior DAG, Punjab

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G.S. Hundal, Vikramjeet Singh
For the Respondents: Gaurav Gurcharan S. Rai

When a trial under the NDPS Act is delayed significantly, the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution may override the statutory bail restrictions of Section 37, allowing for the release of an undertrial who has suffered prolonged incarceration.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 22, 29, 61, 85 - Regular Bail - Petitioner in custody for nearly two years - Sole evidence against petitioner being disclosure statement of co-accused - No recovery from petitioner - Trial at a slow pace - Rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act diluted due to long incarceration and violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India - Right to speedy trial is an essential component of fundamental right to life and liberty.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case involving 4200 tablets containing 597 grams of alprazolam. The petitioner was implicated solely on the basis of a disclosure statement made by a co-accused, with no physical recovery of contraband from him. Despite being in custody for over 22 months, only 3 out of 13 cited prosecution witnesses had been examined, leading to claims of a delayed trial.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that while the NDPS Act carries stringent conditions for bail, prolonged pre-trial incarceration without justifiable cause violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21. It held that disclosure statements have limited evidentiary value and do not justify indefinite detention for an undertrial.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, considering the lack of substantive evidence and delay in trial.

Ratio Decidendi: When a trial fails to conclude within a reasonable time and results in prolonged incarceration, the fundamental rights under Article 21 override the statutory embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, necessitating the grant of conditional bail.

Result: Petition allowed; petitioner released on regular bail with specific conditions.

---

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present 4th 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.17 dated 12.3.2025, under Sections 22/29/61/85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Thulliwal, District Barnala.

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 4200 tablets containing 597 grams of alprozolam, allegedly recovered from the co-accused Balvir Singh alias Beeri and the petitioner has been nominated, in this case, on the disclosure of said co-accused Balvir Singh alias Beeri.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 18.4.2025. 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 Balvir Singh alias Beeri. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for about 2 years. 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 seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 6.4.2026 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 18.4.2025 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan qua him was presented on 9.7.2025. Total 13 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but only 3 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-Balvir Singh @ Beeri, from whom 4200 tablets containing 597 grams of alprazolam 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 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,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document