CRM-M No. 19340 of 2026 · Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2026

Judgment

#1. The present is the second petition instituted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking the concession of regular bail in connection with FIR No. 26 dated 18.01.2025 (Annexure P-1), registered under Sections 22(c) and 27-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station City Tohana, District Fatehabad. It is pertinent to note that the earlier petition for regular bail was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated

02.12.2025. The present petition has been preferred on the basis of subsequent developments and the change in circumstances arising thereafter. CRM-M-19340-2026 (O&M) -:2:-

#2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 18.01.2025, a police party headed by ASI Surender Singh, acting upon secret information, apprehended applicant-accused Kulwant Singh, son of Mukhtiar Singh, and allegedly recovered 51 bottles (vials) of Codeine Phosphate Syrup, weighing 6 kg 920 grams, from his conscious possession in the presence of Sh. Somesh Vashist, Naib Tehsildar, Bhattu Kalan. The recovered contraband was seized in accordance with the prescribed

procedure, whereupon the present FIR was registered. During investigation, Kulwant Singh allegedly suffered a disclosure statement implicating co-accused Ram Singh @ Rama, from whom he claimed to have procured the contraband, leading to the addition of Section 27-A of the NDPS Act. Subsequently, co-accused Ram Singh @ Rama was arrested on 22.01.2025, who, in turn, allegedly disclosed the involvement of Mohammad Ateev. On 23.01.2025, Mohammad Ateev was arrested and allegedly suffered a disclosure statement implicating Mohammad Rehbar @ Mithu, pursuant to which a further recovery of 50 bottles (vials) of Wincerex Codeine Cough Syrup, weighing 6 kg 854 grams (inclusive of the polythene), was effected. Thereafter, on 25.01.2025, co-accused Mohammad Rehbar @ Mithu was arrested and is also stated to have made a disclosure statement regarding his involvement in the alleged offence. Hence the present FIR.

#3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that during the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested and allegedly suffered a disclosure statement implicating himself in the commission of the offence, wherein he stated that the recovered CRM-M-19340-2026 (O&M) -:3:- contraband had been procured from co-accused Ram Singh, son of Rama son of Shiv Dayal. On the basis of the said disclosure statement, Section 27-A of NDPS Act was invoked. It is further submitted that thereafter, on

22.01.2025, co-accused Ram Singh was arrested, who, in turn, allegedly suffered a disclosure statement implicating co-accused Mohammad Ateev, son of Mohammad Nasehin. Subsequently, on 23.01.2025, co-accused Mohammad Ateev was arrested and allegedly disclosed the involvement of co-accused Mohammad Rehbar @ Mithu, son of Najbul, pursuant to which a further recovery of 50 vials of Wincerex Cough Syrup (Codeine), weighing 6.854 kilograms (including the polythene), was effected. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner's continued incarceration cannot be justified merely on the basis of such successive disclosure statements, particularly when the investigation already stands concluded. It is further contended that the delay in the progress of the trial is wholly attributable to the prosecution and not to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that prolonged incarceration of the petitioner, with no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future, would amount to an infringement of his valuable right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petitioner be enlarged on regular bail pending trial.

#4. The custody certificate produced by the learned State counsel is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

4.1. Learned State counsel has placed on record a status report by way of an affidavit sworn by Jai Bhagwan, H.P.S., Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tohana, District Fatehabad, on behalf of the respondent-State in CRM-M-19340-2026 (O&M) -:4:- compliance with the order dated 25.05.2026. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail, contending that, having regard to the nature, gravity and seriousness of the allegations, coupled with the role attributed to the petitioner in the commission of the offence, no case for grant of regular bail is made out. It is, therefore, prayed that the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.

4.2. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at considerable length and have carefully examined the paper book as well as the material placed on record with their able assistance.

#5. The right to a speedy trial is an integral facet of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The constitutional mandate is not confined merely to ensuring a fair trial but also obligates the State to conclude criminal proceedings within a reasonable time so that the process itself does not become punitive.

#6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, 1980 (1) SCC 81, authoritatively held that the right to a speedy trial is an essential and integral part of Article 21, and that any procedure which permits prolonged incarceration without expeditious trial cannot be regarded as fair, just or reasonable. The aforesaid principles are in consonance with the Constitution Bench decisions in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, 1992 (1) SCC 225, and P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, 2002 (4) SCC 578, wherein it was held that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right flowing from Article 21 and CRM-M-19340-2026 (O&M) -:5:- constitutional courts are duty-bound to intervene wherever inordinate and unexplained delay results in denial of substantive justice.

#7. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 322 and in Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 (2) SSC(Criminal) 271, the Court categorically held that "the right to a speedy trial, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence." It was further held that prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without commencement or reasonable progress of the trial, effectively converts pre- trial detention into a form of punishment and cannot be constitutionally sustained. The Court observed that if the State or the prosecuting agency is unable to secure an accused's fundamental right to a speedy trial, it cannot oppose the grant of bail merely on the ground of the seriousness of the allegations, as Article 21 prevails over statutory restrictions where continued incarceration becomes oppressive and unjustified.

#8. This constitutional position has acquired greater significance in prosecutions under special statutes containing restrictive bail provisions. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is undoubtedly a stringent penal statute enacted to combat the menace of illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The principle was specifically applied to prosecutions under the NDPS Act in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352. The Apex Court held that Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be construed so rigidly as to compel indefinite incarceration of an undertrial merely because the trial has not progressed. The Court observed that a literal interpretation of CRM-M-19340-2026 (O&M) -:6:- Section 37, divorced from constitutional values, would amount to sanctioning punitive detention before conviction. It was emphatically held that where the State is unable to conclude the trial within a reasonable time, the rigours of Section 37 necessarily yield to the constitutional mandate of Article 21. The Court further observed that Section 436A Cr.P.C. applies even to prosecutions under special statutes and constitutes an important legislative safeguard against indefinite pre-trial detention.

#9. Recently, in Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109 and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC Online SC 1693, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that prolonged incarceration militates against the most cherished fundamental right under Article 21. The Court observed that where the accused has remained in custody for an unduly long period and the trial is nowhere near completion, constitutional liberty must prevail over the statutory embargo contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Court succinctly held that conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo when the constitutional guarantee itself stands threatened. Similarly, the Apex Court has recently reaffirmed these constitutional principles in.

#10. Thus, the legal position that emerges from the above authorities is that while offences under the NDPS Act are undoubtedly grave and the statutory conditions governing bail are stringent, the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21 remains paramount. Courts are required to balance the societal interest in effective prosecution with the individual's fundamental right to personal liberty. Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial without meaningful progress in the CRM-M-19340-2026 (O&M) -:7:- trial cannot be justified merely by invoking the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In such exceptional circumstances, Constitutional Courts are duty-bound to harmonise the statutory restrictions with the fundamental right to personal liberty and ensure that pre-trial detention does not degenerate into punishment before adjudication of guilt. Where delay is inordinate and not attributable to the accused, constitutional courts are empowered to grant appropriate relief so as to prevent violation of Article

#11. It is equally relevant to note that while Section 37 prescribes stringent conditions for grant of bail, the NDPS Act itself reflects the legislative intent that such prosecutions should proceed expeditiously. Section 36 empowers the Government to constitute Special Courts for the very purpose of ensuring speedy trial of NDPS offences. Therefore, the statutory scheme itself proceeds on the assumption that greater restrictions on bail are constitutionally sustainable only when accompanied by equally expeditious adjudication. Where the State fails to provide the infrastructure necessary for speedy disposal, continued reliance upon Section 37 alone would produce an unconstitutional imbalance between individual liberty and societal interest. Delay defeats that legislative premise. If trials remain pending for years because of systemic inadequacies, repeated adjournments, non-production of witnesses, or institutional delays not attributable to the accused, continued incarceration ceases to be preventive and assumes a punitive character.

#12. Having bestowed thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and upon a prima facie evaluation of the material placed on CRM-M-19340-2026 (O&M) -:8:- record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be subjected to prolonged or indefinite pre-trial incarceration merely because the allegations pertain to a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. The object of pre-trial detention is to secure the presence of the accused during trial and not to impose punishment prior to conviction. Admittedly, the petitioner has remained in judicial custody since 18.01.2025, and the alleged recovery attributed to him comprises 101 bottles of Codeine Phosphate Syrup. It is also not disputed that the subsequent implication of the remaining co-accused is founded upon disclosure statements recorded during the course of investigation. Significantly, co-accused Mohammad Rehbar @ Mithu was granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated

14.07.2025 passed in CRM-M-35408-2025; co-accused Ram Singh @ Rama was enlarged on regular bail vide order dated 06.08.2025 passed in CRM-M-41304-2025; and co-accused Mohammad Ateev, at whose instance a further recovery of 50 bottles of Codeine Phosphate Syrup was allegedly effected, has been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 27.04.2026 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 7169 of 2026. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to claim parity with the aforesaid co-accused.

12.1. It is further not disputed that the investigation stands concluded, the challan has already been presented, and the petitioner is no longer required for custodial interrogation. The petitioner has undergone incarceration for approximately one year and six months, and out of 22 prosecution witnesses, only two witnesses have been examined till date. Evidently, the trial is progressing at a slow pace and is not likely to conclude in the near future. In these circumstances, continued incarceration CRM-M-19340-2026 (O&M) -:9:- of the petitioner would amount to punitive pre-trial detention and would serve no meaningful purpose. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, lest it prejudice either side during trial, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of the concession of regular bail.

12.2. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and the applicant-petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing the requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:- i. The petitioner(s) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the Investigating Agency. ii. The petitioner(s) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall the petitioner(s), directly or indirectly, attempt to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness. iii. The petitioner(s) shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event any of the petitioner(s) is in possession of a passport, the particulars thereof shall be furnished before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court. iv. Before accepting the bail and surety bonds, the learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/C.J.M. concerned shall obtain from the CRM-M-19340-2026 (O&M) -:10:- petitioner(s) the permanent residential address as well as the present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours of the acceptance of the bail bonds and place a verification report on record. In the event any of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law. v. The petitioner(s) shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, the Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law. vi. The petitioner(s) shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential address or mobile number within seven days of such change. vii. The petitioner(s) shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. The petitioner(s) shall not absent from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of violation of any of the aforesaid conditions or unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the CRM-M-19340-2026 (O&M) -:11:- concession of bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest.

#13. In view of the fact that the principal matter stands finally adjudicated, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present proceedings, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders are required to be passed in respect thereof.

21.07.2026 Gaurav Sorot ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No