CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----8420 8420 8420 8420----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 109+236 109+236 109+236 109+236 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Jaspal Singh State of Punjab CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present: Present: Present: Present:- SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL CRM CRM CRM CRM----26852 26852 26852 26852---- to all just exceptions Main case (O&M) Main case (O&M) Main case (O&M) Main case (O&M) 1. Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 the petitioner in case bearing FIR No offences punishable under Section Substances Act, 1985 District SAS Nagar, Mohali. 2. accused of being involved in FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving tablets of Lomotil recovered from police. 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: versus Punjab HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Ashok Bector, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Additional AG Punjab. ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) ----2025 2025 2025 2025 For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed to all just exceptions. Amended memo of parties is taken on record. Main case (O&M) Main case (O&M) Main case (O&M) Main case (O&M) Present petition has been filed under Section Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS petitioner in case bearing FIR No.32 dated ences punishable under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) District SAS Nagar, Mohali. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is accused of being involved in FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving of Lomotil (Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride) recovered from a polythene bag of the petitioner 1111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----8420 8420 8420 8420----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: August 12 August 12 August 12 August 12, 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 ….Petitioner ….Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL for the petitioner. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Additional AG Punjab. the application, same is allowed, subject Amended memo of parties is taken on record. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to dated 17.06.2023, registered for the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station Handesra, The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 4980 (Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride) (308.76 grams) allegedly of the petitioner, who was apprehended by the 1111 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 Petitioner ….Respondent subject Bharatiya for grant of regular bail to registered for the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Handesra, an 4980 allegedly by the MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.12 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----8420 8420 8420 8420----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 3. in custody since submitted that the mandatory provisions of the ND complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. further iterated that the petitioner has years. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. that the allegations raised he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail has further submitted that Section 37 of the NDPS Act State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated Court, which is taken on record. 5. the available records of the case. 6. investigation was carried out and challan was presented on prosecution witnesses have been cited date. The rival contentions raised at Bar give r ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) Learned counsel for the petitioner has in custody since 17.06.2023. Learned counsel submitted that the mandatory provisions of the ND complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 02 years. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition that the allegations raised against the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail has further submitted that the instant bail plea is Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated Court, which is taken on record. I have heard counsel for the rival the available records of the case. The petitioner was arrested on investigation was carried out and challan was presented on prosecution witnesses have been cited and only The rival contentions raised at Bar give r ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to 2222 Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is delayed and the thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has suffered incarceration for more than 02 Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing itioner are serious in nature and, thus, does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel the instant bail plea is restricted by the rigors of , and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 11.08.2025 in rival parties and have gone through The petitioner was arrested on 17.06.2023 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 21.09.2023. Total 8 and only 05 have been examined till The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the 2222 that the petitioner is has further PS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. and the Learned counsel has suffered incarceration for more than 02 arguing , Learned State counsel by the rigors of Learned 2025 in parties and have gone through whereinafter 8 have been examined till ise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may indicate the MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.12 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----8420 8420 8420 8420----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1. forth by the petitioner, thereof cannot be 11.08.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than involved in 01 more case, matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act light of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6.2. Punjab Punjab Punjab Punjab passed in upon the ratio Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar (19 Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2023 INSC 311; Criminal Appeal No.245/20 Subhas vs. The State of West Bengal”; “Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan vs. The State of West Bengal”, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5530 22.08.2022 titled as “Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh vs. The St Gujarat”; Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated 05.08.2022 titled as Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma vs. Union of India, and Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024(4) RCR (Criminal) 172; has held, thus: 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. A perusal of the zimni orders passed by the forth by the petitioner, indicates that the trial is thereof cannot be saddled upon the petitioner. .2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than involved in 01 more case, in which, he stands acquitted. matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act light of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This Court in a judgment titled as passed in CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----64074 64074 64074 64074----2024 2024 2024 2024 (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar (19 Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2023 INSC 311; Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 dated 07.02.2020 titled as “Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas vs. The State of West Bengal”; “Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan vs. The State of West Bengal”, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5530 22.08.2022 titled as “Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh vs. The St Gujarat”; Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated 05.08.2022 titled as Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma vs. Union of India, and Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024(4) RCR (Criminal) 172; has held, thus: 3333 likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering orders passed by the trial Court, brought indicates that the trial is indeed procrastinating and folly upon the petitioner. As per custody certificate dated .2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than 02 years, & is stated to be in which, he stands acquitted. In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted in light of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This Court in a judgment titled as Kulwinder versus State of Kulwinder versus State of Kulwinder versus State of Kulwinder versus State of (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2023 INSC 311; 20 dated 07.02.2020 titled as “Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas vs. The State of West Bengal”; “Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan vs. The State of West Bengal”, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5530-2022 dated 22.08.2022 titled as “Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh vs. The State of Gujarat”; Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated 05.08.2022 titled as Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma vs. Union of India, and Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024(4) RCR (Criminal) 172; has held, thus: 3333 likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering brought folly As per custody certificate dated .2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already is stated to be In this view of the diluted in Kulwinder versus State of Kulwinder versus State of Kulwinder versus State of Kulwinder versus State of (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 80) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2023 INSC 311; 20 dated 07.02.2020 titled as “Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas vs. The State of West Bengal”; “Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan vs. The 2022 dated ate of Gujarat”; Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated 05.08.2022 titled as Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma vs. Union of India, and Ankur Chaudhary vs. MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.12 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----8420 8420 8420 8420----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) prejudice that may resu pressure on the prosecution and the Police, indubitably keeps the entire proceed with the trial with a reasonable dispatch. The guarantee serves a public suspicion due to unresolved criminal charges and lastly, it protects passage of time, thus, impairing the ability of the accused to d prosecutor and after havi particularly where such de 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) “7.8. The right to a speedy and expeditious trial is not only a vital safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration; to mitigate anxiety and concern accompanying the accusation as well as to curtail any impairment in the ability of an accused to defend overarching societal interest paving way for a speedy trial. This right has been repeatedly actuated in the recent past and the ratio decidendi of the above-referred to Supreme Court’s judgments have laid down a series of decisions opening up new vistas of fundamental rights. The concept of speedy trial is amalgamated into the Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty, guaranteed and preserved under our Constitution. The right to speedy trial be imposed at the time of the arrest of the accused and consequent incarceration which continues at all stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible prejudice that may result due to impermissible and avoidable delay since the time of the commission of the offence till the criminal proceedings consummate into a finality, could be averted. The speedy trial, early hearing and quick disposal are sine qua non overcrowded Court-dockets, the heavy volume of work and the resultant pressure on the prosecution and the Police, indubitably keeps the entire criminal jurisprudential mechanism under stress and strain. However, this cannot be an excuse for keeping the sword of Damocles hanging on the accused for an indefinite period of time. It does not serve any credit to the criminal justice system, rather it makes for a sad state of affairs. The guarantee of a speedy trial is intended to avoid oppression a delay by imposing on the Court and the prosecution an obligation to proceed with the trial with a reasonable dispatch. The guarantee serves a threefold purpose. Firstly, it protects the accused against oppressive pre trial imprisonment; secondly, it relieves the accused of the anxiety and public suspicion due to unresolved criminal charges and lastly, it protects against the risk that evidence will be lost or memories dimmed by the passage of time, thus, impairing the ability of the accused to d himself. It goes without saying that the consequences of pre are grave. Accused, presumed innocent, till proven otherwise, are subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of jail under onerous conditions. Equally important, the burden of detention of such an accused frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his family. There is yet another aspect of the matter which deserves consideration at this stage. The allegations in the present case relate to accused being involved in an FIR relating to commercial quantity of contraband under the NDPS Act, 1985. While considering in a case involving commercial quantity, the Court has to keep in mind the rigours enumerated under Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 which mandates that Courts can grant bail to an accused only after hearing the public prosecutor and after having satisfied itself of twin conditions which are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged/alleged and that, he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The stringent rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS must be meticulously scrutinized against the backdrop of accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial. The right to life and personal liberty cannot be rendered nugatory by unwarranted delays in the judicial process, particularly where such delay(s) is neither attributable to the accused nor 4444 The right to a speedy and expeditious trial is not only a vital safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration; to mitigate anxiety and concern accompanying the accusation as well as to curtail any impairment in the ability of an accused to defend himself, but there is an overarching societal interest paving way for a speedy trial. This right has been repeatedly actuated in the recent past and the ratio decidendi of the referred to Supreme Court’s judgments have laid down a series of s opening up new vistas of fundamental rights. The concept of speedy trial is amalgamated into the Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty, guaranteed and preserved under our Constitution. The right to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint imposed at the time of the arrest of the accused and consequent incarceration which continues at all stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible lt due to impermissible and avoidable delay since the time of the commission of the offence till the criminal proceedings consummate into a finality, could be averted. The speedy trial, early sine qua non of criminal jurisprudence. The dockets, the heavy volume of work and the resultant pressure on the prosecution and the Police, indubitably keeps the entire criminal jurisprudential mechanism under stress and strain. However, this eping the sword of Damocles hanging on the accused for an indefinite period of time. It does not serve any credit to the criminal justice system, rather it makes for a sad state of affairs. The guarantee of a speedy trial is intended to avoid oppression and prevent delay by imposing on the Court and the prosecution an obligation to proceed with the trial with a reasonable dispatch. The guarantee serves a threefold purpose. Firstly, it protects the accused against oppressive pre- y, it relieves the accused of the anxiety and public suspicion due to unresolved criminal charges and lastly, it protects against the risk that evidence will be lost or memories dimmed by the passage of time, thus, impairing the ability of the accused to defend himself. It goes without saying that the consequences of pre-trial detention are grave. Accused, presumed innocent, till proven otherwise, are subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of jail-life, usually y important, the burden of detention of such an accused frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his There is yet another aspect of the matter which deserves consideration at this stage. The allegations in the present case relate to accused being involved in an FIR relating to commercial quantity of contraband under the NDPS Act, 1985. While considering a bail petition in a case involving commercial quantity, the Court has to keep in mind the rigours enumerated under Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 which mandates that Courts can grant bail to an accused only after hearing the public ng satisfied itself of twin conditions which are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged/alleged and that, he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The stringent rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 must be meticulously scrutinized against the backdrop of accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial. The right to life and personal liberty cannot be rendered nugatory by unwarranted delays in the judicial process, lay(s) is neither attributable to the accused nor 4444 The right to a speedy and expeditious trial is not only a vital safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration; to mitigate anxiety and concern accompanying the accusation as well as to curtail any himself, but there is an overarching societal interest paving way for a speedy trial. This right has been repeatedly actuated in the recent past and the ratio decidendi of the referred to Supreme Court’s judgments have laid down a series of s opening up new vistas of fundamental rights. The concept of speedy trial is amalgamated into the Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty, guaranteed and preserved under our gins with the actual restraint imposed at the time of the arrest of the accused and consequent incarceration which continues at all stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible lt due to impermissible and avoidable delay since the time of the commission of the offence till the criminal proceedings consummate into a finality, could be averted. The speedy trial, early udence. The dockets, the heavy volume of work and the resultant pressure on the prosecution and the Police, indubitably keeps the entire criminal jurisprudential mechanism under stress and strain. However, this eping the sword of Damocles hanging on the accused for an indefinite period of time. It does not serve any credit to the criminal justice system, rather it makes for a sad state of affairs. The nd prevent delay by imposing on the Court and the prosecution an obligation to proceed with the trial with a reasonable dispatch. The guarantee serves a - y, it relieves the accused of the anxiety and public suspicion due to unresolved criminal charges and lastly, it protects against the risk that evidence will be lost or memories dimmed by the efend trial detention are grave. Accused, presumed innocent, till proven otherwise, are life, usually y important, the burden of detention of such an accused frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his There is yet another aspect of the matter which deserves consideration at this stage. The allegations in the present case relate to accused being involved in an FIR relating to commercial quantity of a bail petition in a case involving commercial quantity, the Court has to keep in mind the rigours enumerated under Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 which mandates that Courts can grant bail to an accused only after hearing the public ng satisfied itself of twin conditions which are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged/alleged and that, he is not likely to commit any offence Act, 1985 must be meticulously scrutinized against the backdrop of accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial. The right to life and personal liberty cannot be rendered nugatory by unwarranted delays in the judicial process, lay(s) is neither attributable to the accused nor MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.12 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----8420 8420 8420 8420----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) justified at the end of the prosecution by cogent reasons. An individual petition in a case governed by the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, not warranted in the facts 7. ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned addition to conditions that may be Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bou 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) justified at the end of the prosecution by cogent reasons. An individual cannot be kept behind bars for an inordinate period of time by taking refuge in rigours laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 legislature in its wisdom, in order to ensure speedy and timely disposal of the cases under the Act, has provided for the constitution of special Courts under Section 36-A of the Act. However, this Court cannot turn eye to the protracted delays and systematic inefficiency that frustrate this legislative purpose. A Court of law is duty not become complicit in violation of an individual’s fundamental rights, notwithstanding anything contained in a statute. While petition in a case governed by the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, the Court must strike a judicious balance between the legislative intent to curb the menace of drugs and the sacrosanct right of the accused to a fair and expeditious trial. Prolonged incarceration, without justifiable cause, risks transforming pre-trial detention into punitive imprisonment, an outcome antithetical to the principle of justice and equity. Ergo, the unequivocal inference is that where the t failed to conclude within a reasonable time, resulting in prolonged incarceration, it militates against the precious fundamental rights of life and liberty granted under the law and, as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 ought to be considered as per facts of a given case. In other words, grant of bail in a case pertaining to commercial quantity, on the ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985.” Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall not mis (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. 5555 justified at the end of the prosecution by cogent reasons. An individual cannot be kept behind bars for an inordinate period of time by taking refuge in rigours laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The legislature in its wisdom, in order to ensure speedy and timely disposal of the cases under the Act, has provided for the constitution of special Courts A of the Act. However, this Court cannot turn Nelson’s elays and systematic inefficiency that frustrate this legislative purpose. A Court of law is duty-bound to ensure that it does not become complicit in violation of an individual’s fundamental rights, notwithstanding anything contained in a statute. While dealing with bail petition in a case governed by the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, the Court must strike a judicious balance between the legislative intent to curb the menace of drugs and the sacrosanct right of the accused peditious trial. Prolonged incarceration, without justifiable trial detention into punitive imprisonment, an outcome antithetical to the principle of justice and equity. , the unequivocal inference is that where the trial has failed to conclude within a reasonable time, resulting in prolonged incarceration, it militates against the precious fundamental rights of life and liberty granted under the law and, as such, conditional liberty eated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 ought to be considered as per facts of a given case. In other words, grant of bail in a case pertaining to commercial quantity, on the ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is and circumstances of the case. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty nd by the following conditions: The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or during the trial. The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the 5555 justified at the end of the prosecution by cogent reasons. An individual cannot be kept behind bars for an inordinate period of time by taking . The legislature in its wisdom, in order to ensure speedy and timely disposal of the cases under the Act, has provided for the constitution of special Courts Nelson’s elays and systematic inefficiency that frustrate this bound to ensure that it does not become complicit in violation of an individual’s fundamental rights, dealing with bail petition in a case governed by the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, the Court must strike a judicious balance between the legislative intent to curb the menace of drugs and the sacrosanct right of the accused peditious trial. Prolonged incarceration, without justifiable trial detention into punitive imprisonment, rial has failed to conclude within a reasonable time, resulting in prolonged incarceration, it militates against the precious fundamental rights of life and liberty granted under the law and, as such, conditional liberty eated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 ought to be considered as per facts of a given case. In other words, grant of bail in a case pertaining to commercial quantity, on the ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the /Duty Magistrate. However, in /Duty The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.12 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----8420 8420 8420 8420----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 8. which may be imposed by concerned hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. 10. opinion on the merits of the case. 11. application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. August 12 August 12 August 12 August 12, 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) (vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try t (viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Since the main case has been decided, pending application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 6666 ioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of e ratiocinated upon merits thereof. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. ((((SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)))) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE 6666 ioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and phone number without prior The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those /Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of miscellaneous MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.12 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment