The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to an accused in a case involving commercial quantity of contraband, observing that 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.”
Justice Sumeet Goel passed the order in the case of Bablu alias Ballu v. State of Punjab (CRM-M No.64857 of 2025), holding that prolonged incarceration without justifiable cause risks transforming pre-trial detention into punitive imprisonment.
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the petitioner could be granted regular bail despite the bar under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), given the delay in the conclusion of the trial. The Court allowed the petition, ruling that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution dilutes the statutory embargo of Section 37 when the trial is “procrastinating.”
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Bablu alias Ballu, sought regular bail in connection with FIR No. 60 dated July 25, 2025, registered at Police Station D-Division, Amritsar, under Section 21-C of the NDPS Act. Sections 29, 61, and 85 of the Act were added later.
The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and a co-accused, Mintu, were apprehended near Railway Quarters, Old Lakri Mandi, Amritsar. A search allegedly resulted in the recovery of 279 grams of Heroin from the co-accused. The petitioner was arrested on July 25, 2025.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Submissions: Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner had been in custody since July 25, 2025. It was submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with, rendering the prosecution case defective. The counsel contended that the recovery of 279 grams of Heroin was “marginally above the threshold limit of non-commercial quantity” specified under the Act.
State’s Submissions: The State counsel opposed the bail plea, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the recovery of a commercial quantity of contraband. It was argued that the plea was barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The State also placed on record a custody certificate dated November 20, 2025, indicating the petitioner is involved in 8 other cases.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Sumeet Goel noted that while the challan was presented on November 17, 2025, charges were yet to be framed, and 13 prosecution witnesses were cited. The Court observed, “It is, thus, indubitable that conclusion of the trial will take long.”
On Section 37 NDPS Act vs. Speedy Trial: The Court relied on its previous judgment in Kulwinder v. State of Punjab (2025:PHHC:002695) and various Supreme Court rulings, including Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi). Justice Goel observed:
“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…”
The Court further stated that an individual cannot be kept behind bars for an inordinate period by taking refuge in Section 37. It held that where a trial fails to conclude within a reasonable time, “conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 ought to be considered.”
On Criminal Antecedents: Addressing the State’s submission regarding the petitioner’s involvement in 8 other cases, the Court held that while antecedents must be accounted for, this fact alone is insufficient to decline bail if a case is made out on merits. The Court cited the Supreme Court judgment in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. in this regard.
Decision
The High Court allowed the petition and ordered the release of the petitioner on regular bail, subject to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. The Court imposed strict conditions, including:
- The petitioner must not misuse the liberty or tamper with evidence.
- He must deposit his passport with the trial Court.
- He is required to submit an affidavit on the first working day of every month stating he has not been involved in any new offence.
- In case of involvement in any new offence, the State is mandated to move for cancellation of bail forthwith.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Bablu alias Ballu v. State of Punjab
- Case No: CRM-M No.64857 of 2025
- Coram: Justice Sumeet Goel
- Citation: 2025:PHHC:163124
