In a judgment addressing prolonged pre-trial incarceration under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), the Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to an accused who had remained in custody for nearly three years, observing that the recovery circumstances described in the FIR were inherently implausible.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil, while allowing the petition under Section 439 CrPC (now Section 483 of BNSS), noted, “It is believed to be highly unlikely for a reasonably prudent man and carry 2 kg 600 grams of contraband in a transparent polythene in plain sight as alleged in the FIR.”
The bail petition was filed in connection with an FIR registered under Section 18 of the NDPS Act for alleged possession of 2.6 kilograms of opium, an offence attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act due to its classification as a commercial quantity.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the recovery was not made from the conscious possession of the accused, who maintained an unblemished record. It was further submitted that the accused had been falsely implicated and that the nature of the alleged concealment, carrying contraband openly in transparent packaging, defied logic and believability.
The State opposed the bail, relying on the quantity recovered and the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It submitted that the recovery squarely fell under the commercial category and that continued detention was warranted.
However, the Court found that the petitioner had already undergone 2 years, 10 months, and 12 days of incarceration. Further, only five out of thirteen prosecution witnesses had been examined since charges were framed in May 2023, and the trial showed no signs of early conclusion.
Citing past judgments where bail was granted in cases involving marginally excessive commercial quantity recoveries, the Court referred to several precedents, including Sukhchain Singh @ Manga v. State of Punjab, Pardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, and Hari Yadav @ Haiya v. State of Punjab. It held that a lenient approach could be adopted where prolonged incarceration exists and the factual matrix does not support sustained pre-trial detention.
The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dataram v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., 2018, stating, “The grant of bail is a general rule and putting persons in jail or in prison or in correction home is an exception.”
Further invoking Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, the Court reiterated that the “right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.” It emphasised that the undertrial period must be proportionate and justified with reference to the gravity of the alleged offence and strength of the prosecution’s case.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed. The Court directed that the petitioner be released on regular bail upon furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court or Duty Magistrate. The order, however, clarified that no opinion was being expressed on the merits of the case.
Case Title: Suresh Chand vs. State of Punjab
Case No.: CRM-M-33968 of 2024 (O&M)
Coram: Justice Sandeep Moudgil
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Nikhil Ghai
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Rajiv Verma
Read Judgment
Picture Source :
