Constitutional Principles Of Article 21 Must Override Statutory Embargo Of Section 37 NDPS Act In Prolonged Incarceration: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"Prolonged incarceration generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article-21 of the Constitution, and in such a situation, the constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo contained under Section-37 of the NDPS Act," Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling dated June 3, 2026, held that the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India must prevail over the stringent statutory embargoes on bail under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

A single-bench of Justice Surya Partap Singh observed that while Section 37 imposes "twin conditions" for bail in cases involving commercial quantities, these cannot be used to justify indefinite incarceration of an undertrial prisoner where the trial is delayed.

The Court emphasized that the right to a reasonably fair and just procedure is an integral part of the constitutional mandate. The bench noted that "the grant of bail on account of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered under Section-37 of the NDPS Act," particularly when viewed through the lens of Section 436-A of the CrPC (now corresponding to Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita).

The case originated from FIR No. 49 dated September 12, 2025, registered at Police Station SSOC Amritsar under Sections 21, 29, 27-A, and 25 of the NDPS Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The police intercepted a smuggling network following a tip-off regarding a drone-delivered consignment of narcotics and weapons. While 1 kg of Heroin was recovered from two co-accused in a car, the petitioner, Gurwinder Singh, was intercepted alongside others, and six pistols along with drug money were allegedly recovered from their possession.

The primary question before the court was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the recovery of a commercial quantity of contraband, in light of his eight-and-a-half-month incarceration. The court was also called upon to determine if the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply when no direct recovery of narcotics is made from the petitioner, and whether the principle of parity with co-accused who were already granted bail should be extended to him.

Article 21 Supersedes Statutory Restrictions Under NDPS Act

The Court meticulously analyzed the conflict between statutory embargoes and constitutional guarantees. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023), the bench noted that Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not act as an absolute bar to bail if there is undue delay in the trial. The court observed that the imperative of Section 436-A of the CrPC, which mandates the release of undertrials after a certain period of detention, remains applicable to NDPS offences.

The Court further relied on Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha (2023) to reiterate that prolonged incarceration militates against the right to life and liberty. The bench noted that in situations where the trial is likely to take considerable time, constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo.

"Constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo contained under Section-37 of the NDPS Act."

Rigors Of Section 37 Not Attracted Without Direct Narcotic Recovery

Regarding the specific allegations against the petitioner, the Court noted a crucial distinction in the nature of the recovery. While the prosecution alleged a "huge recovery" of 1 kg of Heroin, it was pointed out that the narcotic recovery was from the car occupied by co-accused Jaskaran and Amritpal. The allegation against the petitioner was limited to the recovery of six pistols from the car he was traveling in.

The Court held that since the recovery of the contraband (the narcotic substance) had not taken place from the personal possession of the petitioner, the specific rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not attracted in the instant case against him.

Court Distinguishes Between Contraband Recovery And Arms Recovery

Parity With Co-Accused And Completion Of Investigation

The bench took into account that similarly placed co-accused, Amandeep and Harkirat, had already been granted the benefit of bail in April 2026. Applying the principle of parity, the Court found no reason to deny the same benefit to the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court observed that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed, meaning "nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner."

The Court remarked that the detention of the petitioner in judicial lock-up was unlikely to serve any further investigative purpose, especially since the trial was not expected to conclude in the near future.

"The trial of this case is not likely to be concluded in near future; the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose."

Presumption Of Innocence And Low Conviction Rates

Invoking the landmark judgment in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018), the Court reminded the state that the "fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence." It observed that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, a principle that has unfortunately been lost sight of in many instances, leading to the prolonged incarceration of more and more persons.

The Court also cited Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022), noting that the "abysmally low" rate of conviction in India often weighs negatively on the minds of courts, leading to stricter bail decisions. The bench emphasized that a bail application is not punitive and must not be mixed with the final adjudication of the trial.

"An ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice."

Right To Speedy Trial Is Non-Negotiable

The Court highlighted recent trends in the Supreme Court, citing Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) and Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab (2024), to emphasize that a trial lasting six to seven years violates Article 21. Justice Singh noted that judges are the "masters of their Courtrooms" and must use the tools provided by the procedural code to ensure cases proceed efficiently.

The Court concluded that after perusing the record and the cumulative effect of the petitioner’s custody period, the completion of investigation, and the legal precedents, the petitioner deserved the concession of bail.

The High Court allowed the petition and ordered the release of the petitioner on bail subject to furnishing personal and surety bonds. The Court imposed strict conditions, including a prohibition on leaving India without permission and a mandate to notify any change of address to the trial court. The bench clarified that these observations were made solely for deciding the bail petition and would not affect the merits of the trial.

Date of Decision: June 03, 2026