Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 9511

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-17549-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision : 08.04.2026

Avinash @Avinash Kumar ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ..... Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Present : Mr. Satnam Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Satnam Singh
For the Respondents: Rohit Bansal

The constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution overrides the statutory embargo contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, especially when the accused has suffered prolonged incarceration and the trial is unlikely to conclude soon.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 37 - Bail - Commercial quantity recovery - Prolonged incarceration and denial of speedy trial outweigh the rigors of Section 37 when the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future.

(B) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to speedy trial - Constitutional mandate overrides statutory embargoes in bail matters where the accused has undergone significant incarceration as an undertrial.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is an undertrial accused in a case involving the recovery of 260 grams of heroin (commercial quantity). This is his third petition for bail; the grounds include the release of a co-accused on bail, the duration of incarceration exceeding one year and three months, and the lack of progress in the trial.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that prolonged incarceration without the trial concluding in the near future violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21. Given the petitioner has already spent over 15 months in custody and a co-accused has been released, the bail petition is allowed.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the recovery of a commercial quantity of contraband and the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Ratio Decidendi: While Section 37 imposes strict conditions for bail in cases of commercial quantity, these do not act as an absolute bar when incarceration is prolonged and the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is compromised.

Result: Petition allowed; bail granted subject to conditions.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

This petition for bail is the third petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.0004 dated 02.01.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 21(C), 27 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’, Police Station City Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘ASI Shawinder Singh’, who reported that on 02.01.2025, when he was leading a team of police officials, deputed for patrolling duty, near the main gate of cotton market four persons riding on two-wheelers were spotted. According to above-named police officer, the abovesaid persons when noticed the presence of police party tried to escape and in view of abovementioned suspicious behaviour, they were apprehended who disclosed their names as ‘Savtaj Bhatti’, ‘Jashan’, ‘Gaurav Kumar’ and ‘Avinash’ (the petitioner herein). It has further been alleged by the prosecution that while complying with the necessary provisions enshrined under NDPS Act, the search of person of abovesaid persons were undertaken and from their possession, 260 grams of ‘heroin’ kept in a transparent packet was recovered.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were completed, and further investigation taken up.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab appears on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State Counsel has orally opposed the present petition.

6. Heard.

7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that this is third petition for bail filed by the petitioner, and that the second petition for bail was dismissed on 28.01.2026. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, from the date of dismissal of second bail petition, change in relevant circumstances has taken place, as the similarly placed co-accused, namely Gaurav Kumar, has been accorded the benefit of bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 11.03.2026. While claiming parity, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for the benefit of bail for the petitioner.

8. The learned State Counsel has controverted the above-mentioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, since the quantity of contraband recovered in this case comes within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’, unless the twin conditions enshrined under Section 37 of NDPS Act are satisfied, the benefit of bail should not be accorded to the petitioner.

9. The record has been perused carefully.

10. Since the recovery of contraband in the case in hand comes within the ambit of commercial quantity, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State’ (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352 are relevant. In the abovementioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that grant of bail on account of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered under Section-37 of the NDPS Act, given the imperative of Section 436-A which is applicable to offences under the Act.

11. In this regard it is also relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Manmandal and Another v. State of West Bengal’, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on 14.09.2023 and ‘Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha’, 2023 SCC Online SC 1109, extended the benefit of bail to the accused, who had been incarcerated for a period of almost 2-3 years and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 9511

The constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution overrides the statutory embargo contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, especially when the accused has suffered prolonged incarceration and the trial is unlikely to conclude soon.

Cases Referred (1)