With Only 1 Of 19 Witnesses Partly Examined, P&H HC Grants Bail After 1 Year And 9 Days In Custody In 1-Kg Heroin Case

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case alleging recovery of 1 kg of heroin, two illegal firearms, two live cartridges and ₹10,000 said to be drug money.

The FIR invoked Sections 21(c) and 27-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and Section 25 of the Arms Act; Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added subsequently.

The petitioner had been in custody since 21 October 2025.

The charge-sheet was filed on 17 March 2026, and, of 19 cited prosecution witnesses, only one had been partly examined by the time of the petition.

This was his second regular-bail petition; the earlier petition had been dismissed as withdrawn on 21 May 2026.

The State opposed bail, relying on the seriousness of the allegations and the restrictions in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Section 37 of the NDPS Act restricts bail in cases involving commercial quantities, requiring the court to hear the Public Prosecutor and be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

Article 21 of the Constitution protects the right to a speedy trial; prolonged incarceration resulting from unjustified delay may warrant conditional release notwithstanding Section 37, where the circumstances support that relief.

Relying on Kulwinder v. State of Punjab and the Supreme Court authorities discussed there, the Court recognised that the right to a speedy trial applies throughout criminal proceedings and guards against oppressive pre-trial detention.

Under the principles set out in Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana, a successive bail petition is maintainable, but ordinarily requires a substantial change in circumstances and cogent reasons for granting relief.

The Court noted that the petitioner had been incarcerated for one year and nine days, while the trial had progressed only to the partial examination of one of 19 prosecution witnesses; the delay was not attributable to the petitioner.

The Court also noted that the petitioner was not shown to be involved in another case and that there was no tangible indication that he would abscond or interfere with prosecution evidence.

Without deciding the merits of the allegations or recovery, the Court treated the extended custody and slow progress of the trial as a material change since the earlier petition, and concluded that continued detention would unjustifiably impair the petitioner’s Article 21 rights despite the Section 37 restrictions.

The order imposed conditions including non-interference with evidence, attendance at trial, surrender of any passport, notification of a cellphone number, and monthly affidavits confirming that he had not been involved in any offence after release; the State or complainant was given liberty to seek cancellation of bail in the event of breach.

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