After 19 Months In Custody, P&H HC Grants Bail In 1.5-Kg Heroin Case, Citing Trial Delay Despite NDPS Section 37 Rigours

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, arising from the alleged recovery of 1.5 kg of heroin.

Arrested on 27 March 2025, he had been in custody for 1 year, 7 months and 10 days by 11 November 2026. The challan was filed on 25 September 2025; of 14 prosecution witnesses, five had been fully examined and one partly examined. The trial court’s orders indicated delay not attributable to the petitioner.

This was his second bail petition; his earlier petition had been dismissed as withdrawn on 13 May 2026. The custody certificate also disclosed his involvement in one other FIR.

Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions on bail for commercial-quantity offences, including the requirement to hear the Public Prosecutor and form the prescribed satisfaction regarding the accused’s guilt and likelihood of reoffending.

Article 21 protects the right to a speedy trial; where unjustified delay causes prolonged pre-trial incarceration, that constitutional right may warrant conditional liberty notwithstanding Section 37’s restrictions.

The Court relied on the speedy-trial authorities discussed in Kulwinder v. State of Punjab, CRM-M-64074-2024 (2025:PHHC:002695), and on the principles concerning successive bail applications in Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana, CRA-S-2332-2023: a successive application is maintainable, but ordinarily requires a substantial change in circumstances and cogent reasons for granting relief.

The Court also relied on Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586, among other authorities, for the principle that criminal antecedents alone do not determine entitlement to bail in the case under consideration.

The Court found that the trial was progressing slowly and that the delay could not be attributed to the petitioner; his substantial pre-trial incarceration therefore engaged his Article 21 right to a speedy trial.

Although the alleged recovery involved commercial quantity and Section 37 applied, the Court held that its rigour could not justify indefinite detention where the trial had not concluded within a reasonable time.

It also noted that nothing tangible indicated a risk of absconding or interference with evidence.

The prolonged incarceration and glacial pace of trial constituted sufficient grounds to entertain the second bail application despite the earlier withdrawal, while the petitioner’s involvement in one other FIR was not, by itself, a sufficient reason to refuse bail.

Bail was subject to specified conditions, including attendance at trial, non-interference with evidence, no further offending, passport deposit if any, reporting contact details, and monthly affidavits confirming no subsequent involvement in an offence.

The Court clarified that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.