Trial courts cannot mechanically defer concluding a trial against an accused pending proceedings against a co-accused.

The petitioner was arrested on 29.09.2020 after the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) recovered 5.4 kgs of Charas (commercial quantity) from his possession at Parmandal Morh, Jammu

A complaint was filed on 25.03.2021, and charges were framed on 27.07.2021

Prosecution evidence concluded on 06.11.2024, and the petitioner’s statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 09.12.2024

At the stage of final arguments, the trial court deferred proceedings indefinitely because the NCB filed a supplementary complaint against a co-accused, Ghulam Mohudin Shah, on 11.03.2025

The petitioner sought bail before the High Court on grounds of prolonged incarceration (five years) and the indefinite hiatus in his trial

Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which imposes a stringent statutory embargo on bail for offences involving commercial quantities

Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal (2022), establishing that the length of custody cannot be the sole ground for bail in such cases

Principles from Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. The State of Punjab (2022), which provides guidelines for trial courts to determine whether summoned additional accused should be tried jointly or separately, emphasizing that if a separate trial is ordered, the main case should proceed to conclusion

The court observed that the petitioner’s trial had effectively concluded as evidence was closed and the Section 313 statement was recorded

It found that the trial court acted in a mechanical manner by deferring final arguments indefinitely based solely on the Special Public Prosecutor's submission regarding the supplementary complaint

The court reasoned that under the Sukhpal Singh Khaira guidelines, even when additional accused are introduced via Section 319 Cr.P.C. or supplementary complaints, the court must consciously decide whether to conduct a joint or separate trial

By staying the petitioner's case, the trial court implied a separate trial but failed to formally adjudicate the necessity of the deferment

The court maintained that because the case involved a commercial quantity and was at the final argument stage, bail could not be granted immediately while a procedural remedy was available

It held that the trial court must re-examine the decision to defer the petitioner’s proceedings within 15 days and decide whether to proceed with final arguments independently

The court further directed the trial court to conclude arguments on charge/discharge in the supplementary complaint against the co-accused within 30 days

Liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a fresh bail application should the trial court again decide to defer his proceedings indefinitely