CRM-M-38551-2026 1 228 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-38551-2026 Date of Decision: 22.07.2026 TARSEM SINGH ...Petitioner Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab. VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking the concession of regular bail in FIR No. 122 dated 14.08.2024, registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Special Task Force, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 14.08.2024, a police party headed by ASI Paramjit Singh was present near Bus Stand, Bahadurpur, in connection with checking of drug smugglers when, at about 3:00 p.m., a secret informer informed the police that the present petitioner, Tarsem Singh, in connivance with his relative Gurchet Singh, was dealing in heroin and had reached Bahadurpur in a Swift car bearing registration No. DL-9CAB-3155 to supply heroin allegedly provided by Gurchet Singh to one Binder Singh. Acting upon the said information, a ruqa was sent to the police station, on the basis of which the present FIR was registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act. Thereafter, the police party conducted a raid at Grain Market, KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-38551-2026 2 Bahadurpur, where the petitioner was apprehended. During the search of the aforesaid vehicle, 272 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered from the dashboard of the car. The recovered contraband was taken into possession in accordance with law and the petitioner was arrested. Upon completion of investigation, the challan has been presented before the learned Trial Court and the petitioner is facing trial. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no concern with the alleged recovery. It is contended that the alleged recovery was effected from the dashboard of the vehicle and the prosecution is required to establish that the petitioner was in conscious and exclusive possession of the alleged contraband. It is further argued that the prosecution story itself alleges that the heroin had been supplied by co-accused Gurchet Singh and was to be delivered to one Binder Singh; however, neither the alleged supplier nor the intended recipient was apprehended or found in possession of any contraband, thereby weakening the allegation under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. 3.1 Learned counsel further submits that although the alleged recovery was effected from a public place, namely Grain Market, Bahadurpur, no independent witness was associated with the search and recovery proceedings and the entire prosecution case rests upon the testimony of official witnesses. It is further contended that the petitioner has remained in custody since 14.08.2024, the investigation stands concluded, the challan has already been presented before the learned Trial Court, and the petitioner is no longer required for custodial interrogation. It is argued that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-38551-2026 3 3.2 Learned counsel also submits that the learned Special Court erred in declining regular bail merely on the ground that the alleged recovery falls within commercial quantity without examining whether the material on record satisfies the twin conditions prescribed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident, has deep roots in society, has not been declared a proclaimed offender in any case, and undertakes not to influence the prosecution witnesses or misuse the concession of bail. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has opposed the present petition and submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail as 272 grams of heroin, which falls within the category of commercial quantity, was recovered pursuant to the secret information received by the police. It is contended that, in view of the recovery of commercial quantity, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted and the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner was apprehended from the spot and the contraband was recovered from the dashboard of the vehicle being used by him. 6. The right to a speedy trial is an integral facet of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The constitutional mandate is not confined merely to ensuring a fair trial but also obligates the State to conclude criminal proceedings within a reasonable time so that the process itself does not become punitive. KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-38551-2026 4 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, 1980 (1) SCC 81, authoritatively held that the right to a speedy trial is an essential and integral part of Article 21, and that any procedure which permits prolonged incarceration without expeditious trial cannot be regarded as fair, just or reasonable. The aforesaid principles are in consonance with 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, wherein it was held that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right flowing from Article 21 and constitutional courts are duty- bound to intervene wherever inordinate and unexplained delay results in denial of substantive justice. 8. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 322 and in Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 (2) SSC(Criminal) 271, the Court categorically held that "the right to a speedy trial, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence." It was further held that prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without commencement or reasonable progress of the trial, effectively converts pre-trial detention into a form of punishment and cannot be CRM-M-21208-2026 (O&M) -5- constitutionally sustained. The Court observed that if the State or the prosecuting agency is unable to secure an accused's fundamental right to a speedy trial, it cannot oppose the grant of bail merely on the ground of the seriousness of the allegations, as Article 21 prevails over statutory restrictions where continued incarceration becomes oppressive and justified. KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-38551-2026 5 9. This constitutional position has acquired greater significance in prosecutions under special statutes containing restrictive bail provisions. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is undoubtedly a stringent penal statute enacted to combat the menace of illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The principle was specifically applied to prosecutions under the NDPS Act in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352. The Apex Court held that Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be construed so rigidly as to compel indefinite incarceration of an undertrial merely because the trial has not progressed. The Court observed that a literal interpretation of Section 37, divorced from constitutional values, would amount to sanctioning punitive detention before conviction. It was emphatically held that where the State is unable to conclude the trial within a reasonable time, the rigours of Section 37 necessarily yield to the constitutional mandate of Article 21. The Court further observed that Section 436A Cr.P.C. applies even to prosecutions under special statutes and constitutes an important legislative safeguard against indefinite pretrial detention. 10. Recently, in 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, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that prolonged incarceration militates against the most cherished fundamental right under Article 21. The Court observed that where the accused has remained in custody for an unduly long period and the trial is nowhere near completion, constitutional liberty must prevail over the statutory embargo contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Court succinctly held that conditional liberty KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-38551-2026 6 must override the statutory embargo when the constitutional guarantee itself stands threatened. Similarly, the Apex Court has recently reaffirmed these constitutional principles in. 11. Thus, the legal position that emerges from the above authorities is that while offences under the NDPS Act are undoubtedly grave and the statutory conditions governing bail are stringent, the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21 remains paramount. Courts are required to balance the societal interest in effective prosecution with the individual's fundamental right to personal liberty. Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial without meaningful progress in the trial cannot be justified merely by invoking the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In such exceptional circumstances, Constitutional Courts are duty-bound to harmonise the statutory restrictions with the fundamental right to personal liberty and ensure that pre-trial detention does not degenerate into punishment before adjudication of guilt. Where delay is inordinate and not attributable to the accused, constitutional courts are empowered to grant appropriate relief so as to prevent violation of Article 21. 12. It is equally relevant to note that while Section 37 prescribes stringent conditions for grant of bail, the NDPS Act itself reflects the legislative intent that such prosecutions should proceed expeditiously. Section 36 empowers the Government to constitute Special Courts for the very purpose of ensuring speedy trial of NDPS offences. Therefore, the statutory scheme itself proceeds on the assumption that greater restrictions on bail are constitutionally sustainable only when accompanied by equally expeditious adjudication. Where the State fails to provide the infrastructure necessary for KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-38551-2026 7 speedy disposal, continued reliance upon Section 37 alone would produce an unconstitutional imbalance between individual liberty and societal interest. Delay defeats that legislative premise. If trials remain pending for years because of systemic inadequacies, repeated adjournments, non-production of witnesses, or institutional delays not attributable to the accused, continued incarceration ceases to be preventive and assumes a punitive character. 13. Be that as it may, considering the custody period already undergone by the petitioner, who has remained in judicial custody since 14.08.2024, and the fact that the investigation stands concluded and the challan has already been presented before the learned Trial Court, the petitioner is no longer required for custodial interrogation. It is further noticed that the alleged recovery of 272 grams of heroin is stated to have been effected from the dashboard of the vehicle, while the prosecution case itself alleges that the contraband had been supplied by co-accused Gurchet Singh and was to be delivered to one Binder Singh, neither of whom was apprehended at the spot. The veracity of these allegations, as well as the question whether the petitioner was in conscious and exclusive possession of the alleged contraband, are matters to be determined during the course of trial. Although five prosecution witnesses have already been examined, the trial is still in progress and is likely to take considerable time to reach its logical conclusion. In these circumstances, keeping the petitioner incarcerated for an indefinite period would serve no useful purpose. 14. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-38551-2026 8 concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:- 1. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the investigating agency. 2. The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall attempt, directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness. 3. The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event he is in possession of a passport, he shall furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court. 4. The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the petitioner his permanent residential address as well as present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification report on the record. In the event either of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law. 5. The petitioner shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance with law. 6. The petitioner shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-38551-2026 9 residential address or mobile number within seven days from the date of such change. 7. The petitioner shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless his personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. He shall not absent himself from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or his unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of regular bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest. (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE 22.07.2026 kv Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.23 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh