Prolonged incarceration and undue delay in trial constitute a violation of the constitutional right to speedy trial under Article 21, which justifies the grant of bail even in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband, thereby diluting the stringent statutory rigors under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

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.8 dated 20.4.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21, 25, 27-A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station State Special Operations Cell, Amritsar District Intelligence Wing (CID).

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 4 Kgs. of heroin recovered from a black back kit allegedly fell down from the hands of accused persons on 20.4.2023 while they were fleeing in a car from the spot, after seeing the police party. Subsequently, ₹8.5 lakhs, was also allegedly recovered from a car, as drug money.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 27.10.2023. 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 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 2 years and 4 months. 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 5.4.2026 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 27.10.2023, whereinafter, investigation was carried out and the challan qua the petitioner was presented on 23.4.2024. Total 17 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but only 01 has been examined and 5 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. A perusal of the zimni orders passed by the trial Court, brought forth by the petitioner, indicates that the trial is indeed procrastinating and folly thereof cannot be saddled upon the petitioner. As per custody certificate dated 5.4.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 2 years, 4 months and 12 days. In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted in light of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6.2 This Court in a judgment titled as Kulwinder versus State of Punjab passed in CRM-M-64074-2024 (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying upon the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Sh