Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right under Article 21: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Despite Recovery of Commercial Quantity

Pre-Conviction Period of Undertrial Should Be as Short as Possible Keeping in View Article 21 —  Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner accused under Sections 15 and 18 of the NDPS Act, despite recovery of 55 kilograms of poppy husk and 500 grams of opium, considering the prolonged undertrial incarceration and slow pace of trial.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil emphasized that while the offence is serious, the accused has a constitutional right to a speedy trial, which is part of the fair procedure guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court remarked, “No useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period.”
The petitioner Nirbhai Singh was arrested on 20.03.2024 following the registration of FIR No. 23 of 2024 at Police Station Maloud, District Ludhiana, under Sections 15, 18, 61, and 85 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged that 55 kg of poppy husk and 500 grams of opium were recovered from the truck driven by the petitioner during a police checkpoint operation.
The petitioner was in judicial custody for more than one year and five days when the bail application was considered. The defence contended that the petitioner was falsely implicated, had clean antecedents, and the alleged recovery was marginally above the commercial quantity threshold.
The State opposed the bail citing the seriousness of the offence and its commercial nature, arguing that such offences affect the social fabric and do not merit leniency.
Court Observes: “Grant of Bail is the General Rule, and Incarceration is the Exception”
In a significant reaffirmation of the settled legal position, the Court observed that: “The grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home is an exception.”
Justice Moudgil, citing Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P., (2018) 2 RCR (Criminal) 131, stressed that bail jurisprudence is driven by considerations of liberty and fairness: “A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.”
The Court also referred to Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 98, to underline that right to speedy trial is not a mere formality but a fundamental right which cannot be curtailed by prolonged incarceration of undertrials.
Noting the slow progress of the trial, the Court highlighted: “After framing of charges on 20.09.2024, out of total 20 prosecution witnesses only 2 have been examined so far, which is sufficient for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial shall take considerable time.”
The Court found that continued incarceration of the petitioner, whose antecedents were clean and who was not involved in any other criminal case, would amount to denial of his right to fair and expeditious trial.
"Pendency of Other Cases Cannot Alone Justify Denial of Bail" — High Court Clarifies
Though the State argued generally about strict standards under NDPS offences, the Court distinguished the present case by relying on its previous ruling in Baljinder Singh @ Rock vs. State of Punjab [CRM-M-25914-2022] where it held that:
“Criminal antecedents are relevant, but appreciation of evidence during trial must relate to that particular case, not to pending unrelated matters.”
In view of the above, the Court directed that: “The petitioner is hereby directed to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.”
The Court made it clear that this decision shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the pending criminal trial.

Date of Decision:  1 April 2025