Prolonged, non-attributable trial delay can override Section 37 NDPS restrictions under Article 21.

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in FIR No. 158 dated 14 October 2025, registered at Police Station Odhan, District Dabwali, under Sections 17(c), 29 and 27-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The petitioner’s earlier bail petition had been dismissed as withdrawn on 26 May 2026.

Co-accused Dinesh Kumar Sethia was apprehended with 3.117 kilograms of opium, allegedly in conscious possession and without a valid licence or permit.

During investigation, Dinesh allegedly made a subsequent disclosure statement stating that he had purchased the contraband from the petitioner for onward supply to co-accused Vinod Kumar.

The prosecution also relied upon a WhatsApp communication containing the expression “Road Ka Raja Ki Jai,” whose interpretation was disputed by the parties.

The petitioner contended that the recovery was not effected from him, that his implication arose only from a subsequent disclosure statement, that the challan had been presented, and that he had remained in custody since 23 October 2025.

He further submitted that the trial was progressing slowly and that the delay was not attributable to him.

The State opposed bail on the basis of the gravity of the offence, the commercial quantity involved and the statutory restrictions under the NDPS Act.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail despite the alleged involvement in an offence involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act and the restrictions imposed by Section 37 thereof?

Whether prolonged incarceration, slow progress of trial and the petitioner’s limited connection with the alleged recovery warranted bail in order to protect his fundamental right to personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution?

Whether the subsequent disclosure statement of the co-accused and the ambiguous WhatsApp communication justified further custodial detention of the petitioner at the pre-trial stage?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 Cr.P.C., governing regular bail.

The Court considered the restrictive bail regime under Section 37 of the NDPS Act in cases involving commercial quantity.

It held that the right to a speedy trial is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, relying on Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, 1980 (1) SCC 81, and 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.

It further relied on Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 322, and Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 (2) SCC (Criminal) 271, for the principle that the right to speedy trial is not eclipsed by the nature or seriousness of the offence.

In the NDPS context, the Court relied on Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, 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, holding that Section 37 cannot justify indefinite or punitive pre-trial incarceration where the trial is unduly delayed and Article 21 is imperilled.

The Court also referred to Section 36 of the NDPS Act to emphasise the legislative expectation of expeditious trial before Special Courts.

The Court balanced the seriousness of the NDPS allegations and the statutory rigours of Section 37 against the petitioner’s constitutional right to personal liberty and speedy trial.

Although the alleged contraband was of commercial quantity, it had been recovered from co-accused Dinesh Kumar and not from the petitioner.

The petitioner had been in custody since 23 October 2025, investigation was complete, the challan had been filed, and the trial was progressing slowly without delay attributable to him.

The petitioner’s alleged involvement principally rested on a subsequent disclosure statement of the co-accused and an ambiguous WhatsApp expression, the evidentiary significance of which required examination at trial rather than further custodial detention.

In these circumstances, continued incarceration risked converting pre-trial detention into punishment and therefore had to yield to the constitutional mandate under Article 21.

The bail was made conditional upon, inter alia, non-interference with witnesses or evidence, not leaving India without prior permission, disclosure and verification of residential addresses, furnishing PAN, Aadhaar, bank-account and property particulars, reporting changes in address or mobile number, refraining from committing a similar offence, and appearing before the Trial Court on every date unless exempted.

The Court held that, in the facts of the case, prolonged custody and slow trial progress outweighed the continued application of the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of as infructuous.