STATE OF PUNJAB v. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab

Judgment

#1. The present petition has been 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 pending trial in connection with FIR No. 52 dated 10.03.2026, registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Sadar Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur.

#2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 10.03.2026, while on routine patrolling duty, the police party allegedly noticed two vehicles, namely a Mahindra Bolero bearing Registration No. PB-08-CR- 5360 and a Hyundai Verna bearing Registration No. PB-08-BX-8375, parked near a newly developed colony on the road leading towards Village CRM-M-38393-2026 (O&M) -:2:- Bassi Gulam Hussain. Four persons, including the present petitioner, were allegedly found standing near the said vehicles. Upon entertaining suspicion, the police initiated proceedings under the provisions of the NDPS Act. After the arrival of a Gazetted Officer and completion of the requisite procedural formalities, including the alleged compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, personal searches of the accused persons were conducted, resulting in the alleged recovery of contraband.

Consequently, the present FIR came to be registered and investigation was set into motion.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no contraband, drug proceeds, incriminating article or any other objectionable material was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. It is further submitted that no contraband or objectionable article was recovered from either of the two vehicles allegedly involved in the occurrence. According to learned counsel, the prosecution has not attributed any specific role to the petitioner in relation to the alleged sale, purchase, supply, transportation, possession or financing of the contraband, and his implication rests solely upon a bald and omnibus allegation of conspiracy under Section 29 of NDPS Act, 1985. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Special Court, while declining the concession of regular bail vide order dated 01.06.2026, erroneously recorded that heroin and currency had been recovered during the search of the vehicles and, without any factual foundation in the FIR or the material collected during investigation, proceeded to describe the petitioner as the supplier of the alleged contraband. It is argued that the petitioner has CRM-M-38393-2026 (O&M) -:3:- remained in judicial custody since 10.03.2026, and that the absence of any recovery from his possession, lack of conscious possession, non- attribution of any specific overt act, coupled with the apparent factual errors in the impugned order, furnish reasonable grounds, at least prima facie, for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offences, thereby satisfying the twin conditions contemplated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for the limited purpose of consideration of bail. Learned counsel further submits that the delay in the conclusion of the trial is wholly attributable to the prosecution and not to the petitioner. It is, therefore, contended that continued incarceration of the petitioner for an indefinite period would amount to an unjustified deprivation of his valuable right to personal liberty and a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed and 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 vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail, contending that, having regard to the nature, gravity and seriousness of the allegations, the quantity of contraband allegedly recovered, and the rigours of the provisions of the NDPS Act, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail at this stage. It is further submitted that the material collected during investigation prima facie establishes the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offence and that his release on bail may adversely affect the fair conduct of the trial. It CRM-M-38393-2026 (O&M) -:4:- is, therefore, prayed that the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.

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

#6. 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.

#7. 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 constitutional courts are duty-bound to intervene wherever inordinate and unexplained delay results in denial of substantive justice.

#8. 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 CRM-M-38393-2026 (O&M) -:5:- 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.

#9. 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 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 CRM-M-38393-2026 (O&M) -:6:- Cr.P.C. applies even to prosecutions under special statutes and constitutes an important legislative safeguard against indefinite pre-trial detention.

#10. 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.

#11. 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 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 CRM-M-38393-2026 (O&M) -:7:- inordinate and not attributable to the accused, constitutional courts are empowered to grant appropriate relief so as to prevent violation of Article

#12. 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.

#13. Having bestowed thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and upon a prima facie appraisal of the material available on 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 inflict punishment prior to conviction. Admittedly, the CRM-M-38393-2026 (O&M) -:8:- petitioner has remained in judicial custody since 10.03.2026. As per the prosecution case itself, 260 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered from the conscious possession of co-accused Naresh Kumar @ Minnu, whereas a sum of 55,000/- was recovered from co-accused Manjinder Singh @ ₹ Mani. Significantly, no contraband, drug proceeds or any other incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner. It is also not disputed that the investigation stands concluded, the challan has already been presented and the petitioner is no longer required for custodial interrogation. The trial is still at a nascent stage and is not likely to conclude in the near future. The delay in the trial is not attributable to the petitioner. In these circumstances, continued incarceration would serve no meaningful purpose and would amount to punitive detention before adjudication of guilt. The right to a speedy trial, being an integral facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, also deserves due weight. 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.

13.1. 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 concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:- CRM-M-38393-2026 (O&M) -:9:- 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 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 CRM-M-38393-2026 (O&M) -:10:- 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 concession of bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest.

#14. 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