Rigours Of Section 37 NDPS Act Stand Diluted If Trial Is Delayed & Incarceration Is Prolonged: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"Stringent rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 must be meticulously scrutinized against the backdrop of accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial. The right to life and personal liberty cannot be rendered nugatory by unwarranted delays in the judicial process." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, held that the statutory bars to bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stand diluted when a trial is protracted and the accused has suffered prolonged incarceration.

A single bench of Justice Sumeet Goel observed that a court of law is duty-bound to ensure it does not become complicit in the violation of an individual’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, notwithstanding statutory embargos.

The petitioner, Ramanpreet Kaur, was arrested on August 10, 2025, in connection with an FIR involving the recovery of 1.40 kg of heroin and multiple firearms from the premises of co-accused individuals. Although no recovery was made from the petitioner and she was not present at the spot, she was nominated as an accused solely based on the disclosure statements of co-accused Ayush Mishra and Mehak. This was the petitioner's third attempt at seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, after two previous petitions were dismissed as withdrawn.

The primary question before the Court was whether the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act could be overlooked in cases of prolonged pre-trial detention. The Court also examined the evidentiary value of a co-accused’s disclosure statement and the maintainability of successive bail applications where previous pleas were withdrawn.

Disclosure Statements Of Co-Accused Are Weak Evidence

The Court noted that the petitioner was implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statements made by co-accused Ayush Mishra and Mehak. It emphasized that such statements, in the absence of corroborative material, hold limited evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for keeping an individual in custody.

Justice Goel observed that a confession or disclosure statement made by a co-accused is inherently a weak piece of evidence. The Court highlighted that the final admissibility of such statements falls within the domain of the trial court and must be scrutinized with utmost caution in conjunction with substantive evidence.

"A prima facie examination of these factors is essential to ensure that the process of law is not misused, abused or misdirected."

Trial Delay Dilutes Section 37 NDPS Rigours

The Bench took serious note of the fact that although the challan was presented in December 2025, not a single one of the 34 prosecution witnesses had been examined till date. It held that the trial was "procrastinating" and the fault for such delay could not be saddled upon the petitioner.

The Court held that the right to a speedy trial is an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21. It observed that the guarantee of a speedy trial is intended to avoid oppressive pre-trial imprisonment and to protect against the risk that evidence will be lost or memories dimmed by the passage of time.

"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."

Pre-Trial Detention Must Not Become Punitive

Justice Goel remarked that while the legislature intended to curb the menace of drugs through Section 37, courts must strike a judicious balance. The judgment stated that prolonged incarceration without justifiable cause risks transforming pre-trial detention into punitive imprisonment, which is antithetical to principles of justice and equity.

The Bench emphasized that an individual cannot be kept behind bars for an inordinate period by taking refuge in the rigours of Section 37. It noted that the petitioner had already suffered incarceration for over eight months and was not involved in any other criminal cases, justifying the grant of conditional liberty.

"The 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."

Successive Bail Applications Are Maintainable

The Court clarified the legal standing of successive bail petitions, ruling that they cannot be rejected solely on the grounds of maintainability. It held that a second or third petition is maintainable regardless of whether the earlier petition was dismissed on merits or as withdrawn, provided there is a "substantial change" in circumstances.

The Bench observed that the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court must determine what constitutes a substantial change. In this case, the continued lack of progress in the trial and the extended duration of custody were deemed sufficient changes in circumstances to warrant a fresh consideration of the bail plea.

Allowing the petition, the Court ordered the release of the petitioner on regular bail subject to strict conditions, including the deposit of her passport and the monthly filing of an affidavit regarding her conduct. The Court concluded that further detention was not warranted given the weak nature of the linking evidence and the sluggish pace of the trial.

Date of Decision: 23 April 2026