In cases of prolonged pre-trial incarceration where the trial is delayed through no fault of the accused, the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution overrides the statutory embargo on bail contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

---

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present second 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.60 dated 18.4.2025 under Sections 25 of Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 21-C , 27-A and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Sections 212 and 216 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 2.019 Kgs. of heroin alongwith 7 pistols, 7 cartridges and ₹2 lakhs drug money, allegedly recovered from the petitioner and his co-accused namely Jatinder Singh and Ranjit Singh @ Jeet.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 18.4.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that the prime basis of involving the petitioner into the FIR in question is his confessional statement made in another FIR, which is not tenable in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been scrupulously 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 11 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. 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 has further iterated that the petitioner is accused of offence pertaining to commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, and thus, his bail petition is barred in view of the Section 37 of the Act. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 17.4.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 18.4.2025 wherein after investigation was carried out; challan was prepared on 22.9.2025 and subsequently filed. Charges were framed in the present case on 3.11.2025. Total 12 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which only 2 have been examined till date. 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 The trial is indeed procrastinating and folly thereof cannot be saddled upon the petitioner. As per custody certificate dated 17.4.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 11 months and 25 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 Hu