Court Balances Section 37 NDPS Act Restrictions With Article 21 Liberty; Notes 13 of 18 Prosecution Witnesses Examined and No Risk of Absconding or Evidence Tampering
Chandigarh: The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to an accused facing prosecution under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, observing that prolonged incarceration and delay in criminal proceedings require consideration of the constitutional right to speedy trial.
Justice Sumeet Goel, while deciding CRM-M-53297-2026 titled Suraj @ Sonu Chotala vs State of Haryana on 23.09.2026, allowed the second regular bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The case arose from FIR No. 135 dated 05.06.2025 registered at Police Station Bhiwani Civil Lines, District Bhiwani, Haryana, for offences punishable under Sections 25 and 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The FIR related to recovery of 1 kilogram 252 grams of Ganja from the petitioner. The High Court considered the petitioner’s custody period, progress of trial, statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the right to speedy trial before granting bail.
Background of the NDPS Case
The proceedings originated from FIR No. 135 dated 05.06.2025 registered at Police Station Bhiwani Civil Lines. The petitioner, Suraj @ Sonu Chotala, was booked under provisions of the NDPS Act after alleged recovery of 1 kg 252 grams of Ganja. Since the quantity involved attracted NDPS provisions, the State opposed the bail application by relying upon the stringent conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The matter before the High Court was not a final determination of guilt or innocence but a consideration of whether continued detention of the accused during the pendency of trial was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Second Regular Bail Petition Before High Court
The present petition was the second attempt by the petitioner seeking regular bail. The petition was filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, which deals with the powers of the High Court and Sessions Court regarding grant of bail. The earlier bail petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court on 21.04.2026.
While considering the second bail petition, the Court examined whether there was any substantial change in circumstances after the earlier order.
Arguments on Behalf of Petitioner
The petitioner was represented by Mr. Ajay Kripal Singh, Advocate. Pasted markdown
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been falsely implicated and deserved the concession of regular bail. The main submissions raised before the Court were:
- The petitioner was in custody since 05.06.2025;
- Mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were allegedly not complied with;
- The prosecution case suffered from inherent defects;
- Delay in trial could not be attributed to the petitioner;
- The petitioner had already undergone more than one year of incarceration.
It was argued that continued custody was not justified when substantial proceedings had already taken place and the trial was likely to take further time.
State Opposes Bail Due to NDPS Restrictions
The State opposed the bail application. The State argued that the allegations were serious in nature and that the petitioner did not deserve bail. It was specifically submitted that the bail petition was governed by the stringent requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes additional conditions before granting bail in cases involving certain NDPS offences. The State also placed the custody certificate dated 22.09.2026 on record.
The State was represented by Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
High Court Examines Trial Progress
After hearing both sides, the High Court examined the status of investigation and trial proceedings. The Court noted that:
- The petitioner was arrested on 05.06.2025;
- Investigation was completed;
- Challan was presented on 02.08.2025;
- A total of 18 prosecution witnesses had been cited;
- Out of these, 13 witnesses had already been examined.
The Court observed that the rival contentions raised by both sides involved issues which would ultimately be examined during trial. At the stage of bail, the Court did not consider it appropriate to conduct a detailed examination of the evidence, as doing so could prejudice the trial proceedings.
Court Finds No Material Showing Absconding or Evidence Tampering
While considering bail, the High Court also examined whether there was any possibility of the petitioner absconding or interfering with the prosecution case. The Court observed that nothing tangible had been brought on record indicating:
- Likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of law; or
- Interference with prosecution evidence.
This factor was considered while deciding whether continued incarceration was necessary.
Custody Period of More Than One Year Considered
As per the custody certificate dated 22.09.2026, the petitioner had undergone incarceration for 1 year, 3 months and 17 days. The custody certificate also indicated involvement of the petitioner in other cases/FIRs. However, the High Court observed that while antecedents of an accused are relevant factors in bail consideration, involvement in other cases cannot by itself become the sole ground for rejecting bail when the facts of the present case justify grant of bail.
The Court relied upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs State of U.P. and Another while considering this aspect.
Successive Bail Petition and Change in Circumstances
The Court also considered the issue of maintainability of a second bail petition. The earlier bail plea had been dismissed as withdrawn on 21.04.2026. The High Court observed that the present petition required consideration because of:
- Extended custody period;
- Progress of trial;
- Changed circumstances.
The Court relied upon its judgment in Rafiq Khan vs State of Haryana and Another, which explains principles governing successive bail applications. The Court noted that successive bail petitions are maintainable and cannot be rejected merely because an earlier petition was withdrawn or dismissed. However, the applicant must demonstrate substantial change in circumstances and not merely repeat earlier grounds.
Balancing Section 37 NDPS Act and Right to Speedy Trial
One of the important aspects of the judgment was the Court’s consideration of the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act alongside the constitutional right to speedy trial. The Court referred to judgments including:
- Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra and Another;
- Hussainara Khatoon vs Home Secretary, State of Bihar;
- Abdul Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak;
- Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs State (NCT of Delhi);
- Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas vs The State of West Bengal;
- Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma vs Union of India.
The Court highlighted that the right to speedy trial forms part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Court Observes Prolonged Custody Cannot Become Punishment Before Trial
The High Court relied upon the principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The Court observed that prolonged pre-trial incarceration can have serious consequences and that delay in trial cannot result in indefinite detention.
The Court noted that speedy trial is intended to protect an accused from oppressive pre-trial imprisonment and ensure that criminal proceedings move forward with reasonable dispatch.
NDPS Section 37 Restrictions Examined
The Court acknowledged that cases under the NDPS Act require consideration of Section 37 restrictions. Section 37 requires the Court to consider whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and whether the accused is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. However, the Court observed that statutory restrictions must also be balanced against constitutional protections. The Court referred to the principle that prolonged incarceration due to trial delay cannot defeat fundamental rights.
High Court Grants Regular Bail
After considering the entire factual background, the High Court held that further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial was not warranted. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and directed release of the petitioner on regular bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
Conditions Imposed by High Court
The Court imposed several conditions while granting bail. The petitioner was directed:
- Not to misuse the liberty granted;
- Not to tamper with oral or documentary evidence;
- Not to remain absent before the Trial Court;
- Not to commit any offence while on bail;
- To deposit passport, if any;
- To provide mobile number to the Investigating Officer/SHO;
- Not to change mobile number without prior permission;
- Not to delay the trial.
Additionally, the petitioner was directed to submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit before the Trial Court stating that he had not been involved in commission of any offence after release on bail. The Court clarified that if any violation was found, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.
Court Clarifies No Opinion on Merits
The High Court specifically clarified that nothing stated in the order would be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The Trial Court would decide the matter independently based on evidence produced during trial.
Legal Significance of the Order
The order is significant because it demonstrates the judicial approach towards balancing:
- Stringent provisions of the NDPS Act;
- Public interest in controlling narcotic offences;
- Constitutional protection of personal liberty;
- Right to speedy trial.
The decision reiterates that while NDPS cases require strict scrutiny, an accused cannot remain incarcerated indefinitely if trial proceedings are delayed and constitutional safeguards are affected. The judgment also provides guidance on successive bail applications, clarifying that a second bail petition can be considered where substantial changes occur after the earlier proceedings.
Conclusion
The Punjab & Haryana High Court’s order dated 23.09.2026 in Suraj @ Sonu Chotala vs State of Haryana provides relief to an NDPS accused who had remained in custody for more than one year. The Court considered the alleged recovery of 1 kg 252 grams of Ganja, the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, progress of trial and the petitioner’s custody period. While recognising the seriousness of NDPS offences, the Court held that statutory restrictions must be balanced with the fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Considering that 13 out of 18 prosecution witnesses had already been examined, the absence of material showing likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence, and the extended custody period, the Court granted regular bail subject to stringent conditions.
The order makes it clear that the observations are limited to the bail proceedings and will not affect the final outcome of the criminal trial.
LawDaily.org | Legal News & Court Updates