Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to an accused booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, observing that prolonged incarceration due to delay in trial cannot be permitted to override the fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Sumeet Goel of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the third regular bail petition filed by Shambhu Singh under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in connection with an FIR registered under Section 21 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Taraori, District Karnal.
The Court noted that although the allegations involved recovery of 270 grams of heroin from the conscious possession of the petitioner, the accused had already remained in custody for more than one year and five months, while the trial had progressed at a slow pace.
The High Court held that statutory restrictions under the NDPS Act cannot become a ground to keep an accused in prolonged pre-trial detention when the delay in conclusion of trial is not attributable to the accused.
Background Of The Case
The case arose out of FIR No. 85 dated 03.03.2025, registered at Police Station Taraori, District Karnal, for an offence punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
The prosecution allegation was that 270 grams of heroin was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner.
The petitioner was arrested on 03 March 2025 and remained in custody thereafter. Investigation was completed and the challan was presented before the trial court on 30 August 2025.
The prosecution had cited a total of 15 witnesses, however, at the time of consideration of the bail petition, only two witnesses had been examined. The High Court observed that the trial was not progressing at the required pace and the delay could not be attributed to the petitioner.
Petitioner’s Argument Before The High Court
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the accused had already undergone incarceration of more than one year and five months.
It was argued that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act had not been complied with and the prosecution case suffered from certain legal defects. The counsel further submitted that the trial was delayed and the petitioner could not be held responsible for the same.
The petitioner contended that continued detention would amount to violation of his constitutional right to speedy trial and personal liberty.
State Opposes Bail, Relies Upon Section 37 NDPS Act
The State opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations against the petitioner were serious in nature.
The State argued that the case was governed by the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which places additional restrictions on grant of bail in cases involving commercial quantity offences.
It was submitted that unless the twin conditions prescribed under Section 37 were satisfied, the petitioner should not be granted bail.
The State also placed on record the custody certificate dated 06 August 2026, showing the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner.
High Court Considers Delay In Trial
After hearing both sides, the High Court examined the progress of the trial.
The Court observed that the rival contentions raised by both parties involved issues which required detailed consideration during trial. At the stage of bail, the Court refrained from making any detailed observations that could prejudice the trial.
However, the Court found that there was no material suggesting that the petitioner was likely to abscond or interfere with prosecution evidence.
The Court further observed that the trial proceedings reflected delay and that the responsibility for such delay could not be placed upon the petitioner.
Section 37 NDPS Act Cannot Override Article 21 In Cases Of Prolonged Delay
A significant aspect of the judgment was the Court’s consideration of the balance between the stringent bail conditions under the NDPS Act and the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty.
The Court observed that although Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes strict conditions for grant of bail, these restrictions must be examined along with the accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial.
The High Court relied upon earlier judgments dealing with the importance of speedy trial as part of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court referred to the principle that the right to speedy trial begins from the stage of arrest and continues throughout investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision proceedings.
The Court noted that prolonged incarceration of an accused who is presumed innocent until proven guilty can result in serious consequences, including physical and psychological hardship associated with jail custody.
Court Refers To Supreme Court Principles On Speedy Trial
The High Court relied upon various judgments of the Supreme Court concerning speedy trial and personal liberty.
The Court referred to the principles laid down in cases including:
- Hussainara Khatoon vs Home Secretary, State of Bihar
- Abdul Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak
- Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra
- Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs State (NCT of Delhi)
- Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas vs State of West Bengal
- Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma vs Union of India
- Ankur Chaudhary vs State of Madhya Pradesh
The Court observed that speedy trial is an essential component of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
Commercial Quantity Cases Require Balance Between NDPS Restrictions And Liberty
The Court acknowledged that cases involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act require strict consideration because Section 37 imposes mandatory restrictions. However, the Court observed that statutory restrictions cannot result in indefinite incarceration where trial is delayed without justification.
The judgment noted that courts must maintain a balance between the legislative objective of controlling drug-related offences and the constitutional protection of individual liberty. The Court observed that keeping an accused behind bars for an unreasonable period merely because of the restrictions under Section 37 would risk converting pre-trial detention into punishment before conviction.
Third Bail Petition Maintainable After Change In Circumstances
The Court also considered the fact that the present application was the petitioner’s third attempt for regular bail. The earlier bail petitions had been dismissed as withdrawn on 14.11.2025 and 27.03.2026.
However, the Court observed that successive bail petitions can be considered when there is a substantial change in circumstances. In the present case, the Court found that the prolonged custody period and slow pace of trial constituted changed circumstances warranting reconsideration of bail.
High Court Grants Regular Bail With Conditions
Considering the prolonged custody, delay in trial and overall circumstances, the High Court allowed the petition and ordered release of the petitioner on regular bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.
The Court imposed several conditions, including:
- The petitioner shall not misuse the liberty granted;
- He shall not tamper with evidence;
- He shall remain present before the trial court on all dates;
- He shall not commit any offence during the bail period;
- He shall deposit his passport, if any;
- He shall provide his mobile number to the investigating officer;
- He shall not delay the trial proceedings.
The Court further directed the petitioner to submit a monthly affidavit before the trial court stating that he had not been involved in any offence after release on bail.
Legal Significance Of The Judgment
The judgment reiterates the important principle that bail jurisprudence cannot ignore constitutional guarantees of liberty and speedy trial.
While offences under the NDPS Act require strict scrutiny and Section 37 creates significant hurdles for accused persons seeking bail, courts must also ensure that an accused does not remain incarcerated indefinitely due to delays in the judicial process.
The ruling highlights that pre-trial detention is not intended to become a substitute for punishment. The guilt of an accused has to be determined through a fair trial, and unreasonable delay can become a relevant factor while considering bail.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision granting bail to Shambhu Singh reflects the continuing judicial approach of balancing stringent criminal statutes with constitutional protections. The Court did not examine the merits of the prosecution case in detail but focused on the prolonged custody period, slow progress of trial and the accused’s right to speedy justice. The judgment reinforces that even in serious NDPS cases, courts must ensure that statutory restrictions do not result in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.