Cannot Keep Accused In Jail For Inordinate Period By Taking Refuge In Section 37 NDPS: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail In Commercial Quantity Heroin Case

"Right to life and personal liberty cannot be rendered nugatory by unwarranted delays in the judicial process, particularly where such delay(s) is neither attributable to the accused nor justified at the end of the prosecution by cogent reasons." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling dated August 24, 2026, held that the statutory embargo on regular bail under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) stands diluted in light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India when an undertrial faces prolonged incarceration and an inordinate delay in trial.

Justice Sumeet Goel underscored that an individual cannot be kept behind bars for an indefinite period merely because the statute prescribes stringent conditions, observing that "grant of bail in a case pertaining to commercial quantity, on the ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985."

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in connection with FIR No. 193 dated October 21, 2024, registered under Sections 21-B, 21-C, 27-A, and 29 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Chheharta, District Amritsar, involving the alleged recovery of 2.5 kg of heroin. The petitioner had been incarcerated since October 24, 2024, without any other criminal antecedents. Although the final report under Section 173 was submitted on April 17, 2025, none of the 21 cited prosecution witnesses had been examined before the trial court.

The primary question before the court was whether the stringent twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act bar the grant of bail when an accused has suffered prolonged pre-trial detention with no progress in trial. The court was also called upon to determine whether the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 overrides statutory restrictions against bail in commercial quantity contraband cases.

Constitutional Liberty Under Article 21 Dilutes Statutory Rigours Of Section 37 NDPS

Examining the custody certificate, the court observed that the petitioner had undergone actual incarceration for 1 year, 9 months, and 27 days without being implicated in any other criminal matter. The bench noted that while the prosecution cited 21 witnesses in the challan presented in April 2025, the trial had not effectively commenced since not a single witness had been examined. The court held that such prolonged detention without visible progress in the trial substantially dilutes the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act when juxtaposed with the constitutional guarantee of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

"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."

Right To Speedy Trial An Inalienable Facet Of Fundamental Rights

Relying upon landmark Apex Court rulings including Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and the High Court's coordinate bench decision in Kulwinder v. State of Punjab, Justice Goel highlighted that speedy adjudication forms the bedrock of criminal jurisprudence. The bench noted that the right to a speedy trial begins with the restraint imposed at arrest and continues through inquiry, trial, and appeals to protect the accused from oppressive incarceration and psychological deprivation.

"The guarantee of a speedy trial is intended to avoid oppression and prevent delay by imposing on the Court and the prosecution an obligation to proceed with the trial with a reasonable dispatch."

Heavy Docket Burden Cannot Justify Indefinite Pre-Trial Incarceration

The court acknowledged the strain on the criminal justice machinery caused by heavy dockets and police workload, but firmly held that systemic inefficiencies cannot be weaponised to keep an accused languishing in jail. The bench observed that keeping the sword of Damocles hanging over an accused for an indefinite period does not serve any credit to the criminal justice system, rather it reflects a sad state of affairs.

"The overcrowded Court-dockets, the heavy volume of work and the resultant pressure on the prosecution and the Police, indubitably keeps the entire criminal jurisprudential mechanism under stress and strain. However, this cannot be an excuse for keeping the sword of Damocles hanging on the accused for an indefinite period of time."

Courts Must Balance Drug Menace Against Sacrosanct Right To Fair Trial

Addressing the statutory objective of the NDPS Act, the bench observed that while courts must remain cognizant of the legislative intent to curb drug trafficking, they cannot turn a blind eye to systematic trial delays that violate fundamental freedoms. The court highlighted that pre-trial detention must never be allowed to degenerate into punitive imprisonment before the guilt of an accused is established through a lawful trial.

"While dealing with bail petition in a case governed by the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, the Court must strike a judicious balance between the legislative intent to curb the menace of drugs and the sacrosanct right of the accused to a fair and expeditious trial. Prolonged incarceration, without justifiable cause, risks transforming pre-trial detention into punitive imprisonment, an outcome antithetical to the principle of justice and equity."

Petition Allowed With Stringent Reporting And Conduct Conditions

Finding no tangible evidence indicating any likelihood of the petitioner fleeing from justice or tampering with prosecution evidence, the High Court directed the petitioner's release on regular bail subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds. The court imposed comprehensive conditions, requiring the petitioner to refrain from misusing liberty, not tamper with evidence, remain present on every trial date, deposit his passport, furnish his mobile phone number to the investigating officer without changing it without court permission, and avoid committing any subsequent offence.

The bench further directed the petitioner to submit an affidavit before the trial court on the first working day of every month affirming non-involvement in any criminal activity post-release. The court explicitly mandated the State to move for immediate bail cancellation should any violation or fresh involvement come to light, clarifying that nothing stated in the order constitutes an expression of opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

Allowing the bail plea, the High Court reaffirmed that where a trial fails to conclude within a reasonable timeframe, prolonged pre-trial incarceration directly infringes upon Article 21, entitling the accused to conditional liberty irrespective of statutory bars. The ruling establishes that statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act must give way to constitutional protections against indefinite detention.

Date of Decision: 24 August 2026