When trial delay results in prolonged pre-trial incarceration, the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 overrides the statutory rigors imposed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, justifying the grant of bail even in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband.

---

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.51 dated 29.07.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Sections 27 and 29 of NDPS Act added later on, at Police Station Sadar Abohar, District Fazilka.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that the petitioner is an accused of being involving in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving alleged recovery of 280 grams of heroin from the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 29.07.2024. 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 iterated that the contraband alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner is 280 grams of heroin, which is marginally above the threshold limit of non-commercial quantity specified in the notification issued under the NDPS Act. 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 08.04.2026 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 29.07.2024, whereinafter, investigation was carried out and the challan was presented on 16.12.2024. Total 20 prosecution witnesses have been cited but 6 has been examined and 2 partly examined till date. It is not in dispute that the contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner is 280 grams of heroin, which is marginally above the threshold limit of non-commercial quantity. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the orders passed by this Court in Rajdev Giri versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-44898-2019, decided on 18.09.2020; Rahish versus State of Haryana, CRM-M-36498-2020, decided on 11.11.2020; Karambir versus State of Haryana, M-31820-2019, decided on 28.08.2019: Jagjit Singh @ Jagga Gill versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-41242-2019, decided on 27.02.2020 and Baljit Kaur @ Baljito versus State of Punjab, CRM-M- 2849-2020, decided on 04.06.2020, wherein accused were enlarged on bail in cases where the alleged recovery was slightly more than the quantity prescribed for commercial category under the NDPS Act. 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. As per custody certificate dated 08.04.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suf