$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010037242026 + BAIL APPLN. 504/2026 PRIVAT MICLO .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anup KR Das, Advocate. versus DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 02.09.2026 1. The instant application has been filed on behalf of the applicant under section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] r/w section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and section 37 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 [“NDPS Act”] seeking regular bail in Session Case No. 338 of 2024, arising out of Complaint Case No. RI/DZU/34/ENQ.29/2023, registered under sections 8, 21, 23 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, registered at PS DRI. 2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Das, at this stage, requests for expeditious disposal of the trial. He contends that the applicant is already in jail for about two years and ten months. 3. Mr. Satish Aggarwala, learned counsel appearing for the prosecuting agency, submits that the agency has not sought any adjournment thus far and undertakes not to seek any adjournment in the future. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/09/2026 at 09:44:56 4. In view of the above submission, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. In the event the trial is not concluded within one year from today, the applicant shall be at liberty to file a fresh bail application before this Court. 5. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial Prisoners) v. Union of India,1 recognised that while Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for the grant of bail, denial of bail coupled with prolonged delay in trial would result in continued deprivation of personal liberty without a timely adjudication of guilt, a consequence incompatible with the guarantee of a fair and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution: "15. On account of the strict language of the said provision very few persons accused of certain offences under the Act could secure bail. Now to refuse bail on the one hand and to delay trial of cases on the other is clearly unfair and unreasonable and contrary to the spirit of Section 36(1) of the Act, Section 309 of the Code and Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. We are conscious of the statutory provision finding place in Section 37 of the Act prescribing the conditions which have to be satisfied before a person accused of an offence under the Act can be released. Indeed we have adverted to this section in the earlier part of the judgment. We have also kept in mind the interpretation placed on a similar provision in Section 20 of the TADA Act by the Constitution Bench in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab [(1994) 3 SCC 569]. Despite this provision, we have directed as above mainly at the call of Article 21 as the right to speedy trial may even require in some cases quashing of a criminal proceeding altogether, as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [(1992) 1 SCC 225], release on bail, which can be taken to be embedded in the right of speedy trial, may, in some cases be the demand of Article 21. As we have not felt inclined to accept the extreme submission of quashing the proceedings and setting free the accused whose trials have been delayed beyond reasonable time for reasons already alluded to, we have felt that deprivation of the personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial would also not be in consonance with the right guaranteed by Article 21. Of course, some amount of deprivation of personal liberty cannot be avoided in such cases; but if the period of deprivation pending trial becomes unduly long, the fairness assured by Article 21 would receive a jolt.” 1 (1994) 6 SCC 731 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/09/2026 at 09:44:56 6. Liberty is also granted to the applicant to move a bail application before the Trial Court after six months if the trial fails to make substantial progress. 7. At this stage, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the applicant, seeks permission to withdraw the present bail application. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as granted above. 9. All rights and contentions of the respective parties are kept open. 10. It is clarified that if the concerned Court is currently vacant, the Registrar General is directed to take necessary steps to assign the matter to an appropriate designated Court. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 2, 2026 tr This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/09/2026 at 09:44:56