In cases involving commercial quantities under the NDPS Act, the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution can override the strict statutory embargo under Section 37, provided the prolonged incarceration is not attributable to the accused and the trial has failed to conclude within reasonable time.

---

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present 2nd 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.71 dated 07.05.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21, 27(A) & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Ghuman, Police District, Batala, District Gurdaspur.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that from the possession of the present petitioner as well as co-accused 460 grams of heroin along with Rs. 20,000/- alleged to be drug money were recovered, which falls within the category of commercial quantity.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 07.05.2025. 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 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 1 year. 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 16.05.2026 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 07.05.2025, whereinafter, investigation was carried out and the challan was presented on 03.01.2026. Total 29 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none has been examined 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. As per custody certificate dated 16.05.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 1 year 1 day & is not shown to be involved in any other case. 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 Indubitably, the present petition is the 2nd attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.02.2026. Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially extended incarceration of the petitioner and no substantial progress in trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRA-S-2332-2023 titled as Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another ; relevant whereof reads as under:

“10. As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following principles emerge:

I. Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition