1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in NDPS case for alleged involvement under Section 29 based on co-accused's recovery. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 139576
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Virinder Aggarwal, J
Surjit Singh @ Rajan – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRIM-M-7477-2026
Important Points
The fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution outweighs the statutory restrictions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act when prolonged incarceration becomes punitive due to institutional delays.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 36, 37, 42, 50 and 29 - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to speedy trial - Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial without reasonable progress of trial effectively converts pre-trial detention into a form of punishment - The right to a speedy trial is an integral facet of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty - Where the State is unable to conclude the trial within a reasonable time, the rigours of Section 37 necessarily yield to the constitutional mandate of Article 21 - Article 21 prevails over statutory restrictions where continued incarceration becomes oppressive and justified. (Paras 7, 9, 10 and 12)
(B) NDPS Act, 1985 - Section 29 - Bail - Recovery of 301 grams of heroin from co-accused and no recovery from the petitioner or scooter in his possession - Petitioner’s incarceration for over 15 months without progress in trial constitutes a ground for regular bail. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was apprehended along with a co-accused based on secret information. While 301 grams of heroin were recovered from the co-accused, no contraband was recovered from the personal search of the petitioner or the scooter. The petitioner was implicated under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. During the proceedings, the petitioner argued that there was non-compliance with Section 42 regarding the recording of secret information and emphasized that prolonged incarceration without trial progress violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 21.
Findings of Court:
The Court observed that while the NDPS Act is a stringent penal statute, the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21 remains paramount. It was noted that the recovery of contraband was exclusively from the co-accused. Given the length of the petitioner's incarceration and the lack of personal recovery, continued detention would serve no useful purpose.
Issues: Whether the statutory restrictions on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act override the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and whether the lack of personal recovery justifies the grant of bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21, and if the State cannot ensure an expeditious trial, constitutional liberty must prevail over the statutory embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The absence of recovery from the petitioner's conscious possession further supports the grant of regular bail to prevent pre-trial detention from becoming punitive.
Result: Petition allowed.
(B) NDPS Act, 1985 - Section 29 - Bail - Recovery of 301 grams of heroin from co-accused and no recovery from the petitioner or scooter in his possession - Petitioner’s incarceration for over 15 months without progress in trial constitutes a ground for regular bail. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was apprehended along with a co-accused based on secret information. While 301 grams of heroin were recovered from the co-accused, no contraband was recovered from the personal search of the petitioner or the scooter. The petitioner was implicated under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. During the proceedings, the petitioner argued that there was non-compliance with Section 42 regarding the recording of secret information and emphasized that prolonged incarceration without trial progress violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 21.
Findings of Court:
The Court observed that while the NDPS Act is a stringent penal statute, the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21 remains paramount. It was noted that the recovery of contraband was exclusively from the co-accused. Given the length of the petitioner's incarceration and the lack of personal recovery, continued detention would serve no useful purpose.
Issues: Whether the statutory restrictions on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act override the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and whether the lack of personal recovery justifies the grant of bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21, and if the State cannot ensure an expeditious trial, constitutional liberty must prevail over the statutory embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The absence of recovery from the petitioner's conscious possession further supports the grant of regular bail to prevent pre-trial detention from becoming punitive.
Result: Petition allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- constitutional law
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ajay Kumar
For the Respondents: Navreet Kaur
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ajay Kumar
For the Respondents: Navreet Kaur
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argues non-compliance of Section 42 NDPS Act and no recovery from his possession; State opposes citing gravity of offence. (Para 5 )
3. Right to speedy trial under Article 21 prevails over Section 37 NDPS Act where trial is delayed and no contraband recovered from petitioner. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. Constitutional guarantee of speedy trial under Article 21 overrides statutory bail restrictions where trial delay is not attributable to accused. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 12 )
5. Petition allowed; petitioner granted regular bail subject to conditions including non-tampering with evidence and furnishing bonds. (Para 14 , 15 )
6. Does the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 override the stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act?
Yes, where the trial is delayed without meaningful progress and not attributable to the accused, Article 21 prevails over Section 37. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 )
7. Can a person be granted bail under the NDPS Act if no contraband is recovered from their possession?
Yes, the absence of recovery from the accused's conscious possession is a relevant factor for bail consideration at the pre-trial stage. (Para 2 , 14 )
8. Does non-compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act render the investigation defective for bail purposes?
Non-compliance of Section 42 is a matter for trial but remains a relevant factor supporting the petitioner's case for bail at the pre-trial stage. (Para 14 )
9. Does prolonged pre-trial incarceration convert detention into punishment under Article 21?
Yes, prolonged incarceration of an undertrial without trial progress effectively converts pre-trial detention into punitive detention, violating Article 21. (Para 9 , 12 )
10. What conditions must a court impose when granting bail under the NDPS Act?
Conditions include non-tampering with evidence, furnishing surety bonds, providing personal details, and not committing similar offences during trial. (Para 15 )
VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of trial in FIR No.160 dated 13.06.2025, registered under Sections 21-C /29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Anti Narcotics Force (ANTF), District Anti Narcotics Wing, SAS Nagar.
2. As per the prosecution version, on 13.06.2025, ASI Manoj Kumar received secret information that Princepal Singh @ Sidhu @ Sonu and the petitioner Surjit Singh @ Rajan were present near Village Manawala, opposite Best Price, with heroin and were waiting for customers. Acting upon the information, the police party conducted a raid and apprehended both accused along with Activa scooter No. PB-02-EP-5808. The petitioner was identified as Surjit Singh @ Rajan and was allegedly present along with co-accused Princepal Singh at the spot. The accused were apprised of their right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and opted for their search in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. On search of co-accused Princepal Singh, 301 grams of heroin was recovered, whereas no objectionable substance was recovered from the personal search of the petitioner or from the scooter. The petitioner is sought to be implicated under Section 29 of the NDPS Act on the allegation of being present with the co-accused and having joint involvement in the alleged possession of the recovered contraband. The recovery proceedings were documented and videographed through the E-Sakshya App, and present FIR was registered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that there has been non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, which goes to the root of the prosecution case. It is submitted that the alleged secret information was not independently reduced into writing and communicated to the superior police officer before the raid, thereby rendering the investigation defective and creating a possibility of false implication.
3.1 Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution itself relies upon the alleged information received from a secret informer, whereas the requisite compliance of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act has not been established. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajender Singh v. State of Haryana , Criminal Appeal No.1051 of 2009, decided on 08.08.2011, wherein non-recording of the secret information in writing and failure to send the same to the superior authorities was held to constitute complete non-compliance of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act.
3.2 It is further submitted that the petitioner was merely apprehended along with co-accused Princepal Singh @ Sidhu @ Sonu and that, as per the prosecution version itself, no contraband was recovered from the person of the petitioner or from the scooter allegedly in his possession. The alleged recovery of heroin weighing 301 grams is attributed to co-accused Princepal Singh @ Sidhu @ Sonu. Thus, the petitioner seeks bail on the ground that no recovery has been effected from his conscious possession.
3.3 Learned counsel also submits that the prosecution witnesses are not appearing before the trial Court and, therefore, the trial is likely to take considerable time. Continued incarceration of the petitioner in such circumstances would amount to pre-trial detention for an indefinite period. Learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 260, to submit that the stringent conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be interpreted in a manner which effectively excludes grant of bail altogether and results in punitive detention.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Ms. Navreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and
