Prolonged Custody Grounds Bail in NDPS Cases Despite Commercial Quantity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Cites Supreme Court Precedents - 2025-03-26

Legal Awareness & Information.

Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case Citing Prolonged Custody and Supreme Court Precedents

Chandigarh, March 25, 2025 - In a significant ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted bail to Khushal Pal @ Prince , an accused in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. Justice AnoopChitkara presided over the case, emphasizing the principle of conditional liberty and prolonged pre-trial detention.

Case Background

The petitioner, Khushal Pal , was arrested in connection with FIR No. 216 dated March 13, 2023, registered at Police Station Sadar, Karnal, under Section 22(C) of the NDPS Act. He was accused of possessing 1800 Alprazolam tablets, weighing 225 grams, a quantity deemed commercial under the NDPS Act. Pal sought regular bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Arguments and Observations

Representing the petitioner, Advocate G.S. Sandhu argued for bail, highlighting that his client had no prior criminal record and that further pre-trial detention would be unjust. The State, represented by DAG Aashish Bishnoi, opposed the bail, citing the commercial quantity of drugs involved and the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes twin conditions for bail in such cases.

Justice Chitkara acknowledged the applicability of Section 37, stating, "Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The petitioner must satisfy the twin conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act."

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents

However, the court ultimately granted bail, relying heavily on a series of Supreme Court judgments. These precedents consistently granted bail in NDPS cases involving commercial quantities of codeine-based syrups, primarily on the grounds of prolonged pre-trial custody and delayed trials.

The judgment extensively cited 23 Supreme Court rulings from 2020 to 2024, including cases like Chitta Biswas v. The State of West Bengal , Rajib Dey v. The State of West Bengal , and Yusuf SK v. The State of West Bengal . These cases established a pattern of granting bail where accused individuals had been in custody for extended periods, often exceeding a year, with trials making minimal progress.

Justice Chitkara observed, "Given the above, the petitioner’s pretrial custody is more than some of the judicial precedents mentioned above; the petitioner is entitled to bail under Article 14 of the Constitution of India." The court noted that the petitioner had already been incarcerated for nearly two years.

Court's Reasoning and Decision

The High Court emphasized that prolonged incarceration infringes upon the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. It held that in situations of extended pre-trial detention, conditional liberty should take precedence over the statutory restrictions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

> "The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act."

Ultimately, Justice Chitkara allowed the bail petition, directing Khushal Pal 's release upon furnishing bail bonds. Stringent conditions were imposed, including restrictions on possessing firearms, and directives against tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The bail is also conditional, subject to cancellation if the petitioner is found involved in any other non-bailable offense.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces the significance of personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial, even in cases involving serious offenses under the NDPS Act. It highlights the courts' willingness to grant bail based on prolonged custody, especially when trials are significantly delayed, drawing heavily on the principles established in numerous Supreme Court precedents. While acknowledging the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the ruling underscores that prolonged pre-trial detention can be a valid ground for bail, particularly when fundamental rights are at stake.