The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to two accused in a major narcotics case, highlighting that prolonged pre-trial detention and slow trial progress cannot override an accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial, even in offences involving commercial quantities under the NDPS Act.
The bench of Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj passed the order while deciding two connected bail petitions arising from FIR No. 50 dated March 9, 2024, registered at Police Station Gharinda, Amritsar Rural, under Sections 21, 25, 27-A, 61 and later Section 29 of the NDPS Act.
According to the prosecution’s case, the police had received secret information on March 9, 2024, alleging that one of the accused was involved in heroin smuggling. Acting on the tip-off, police set up barricades and stopped a white i20 car. During the search, the police recovered a black bag containing four packets of heroin weighing a total of 2 kg 892 grams. An amount of ₹2,50,000, termed as drug money, was also seized.
One accused was arrested on the spot, while the second was arrested the following day on the basis of a disclosure statement.
The accused argued that there was non-compliance with Section 42 and Section 50 of the NDPS Act. No independent witnesses were joined despite the recovery from a public place. The second accused was implicated only on the basis of a co-accused’s disclosure statement, which is not admissible evidence. Both accused had undergone over 1 year and 8 months of custody with negligible progress in trial—only one witness had been partially examined out of 12. They had no significant criminal antecedents.
The state stressing that a commercial quantity of heroin was recovered, attracting the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Investigations indicated involvement of the second accused, including alleged supply of the vehicle used in the offence.
Justice Bhardwaj observed that despite the stringent conditions under Section 37, courts cannot allow pre-trial custody to turn into punitive or preventive detention, especially when trials face delays.
After reviewing the prolonged custody, slow trial progress, and the overall circumstances, the High Court concluded that the petitioners had made out a case for bail. Both accused were ordered to be released on regular bail upon furnishing adequate surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.
The court clarified that the order should not be treated as an expression on the merits of the case.
Case Details
Case Title: Pankaj Rana Versus State of Punjab
Case No.: CRM-M No.50785 of 2025
Date: 01/12/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate
Counsel For Respondent: Amit Kumar Goel, AAG
