After three years in custody as an undertrial, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday granted bail to a man who was allegedly found in possession of 500 kg of poppy husk without a permit.

Justice Pankaj Jain observed that "Right to speedy trial is one of the objectives of NDPS Act and is rather one of the checks and balances provided under the Act. Section 36 NDPS Act recognizes the need for speedy trial. The provision contained in Section 36 providing for constitution of Special Courts is a means to achieve the end objective of speedy trial. Section 36 well recognizes the need for speedy trial."

The petitioner should be granted bail, the single bench of Justice Pankaj Jain ruled, noting that there were 18 cited witnesses who needed to be questioned and that "the petitioner had already suffered prolonged incarceration of about three years, there was no other case under the provisions of the NDPS Act registered against him."

The petitioner, who has been detained since November 2019, requested standard bail in connection with the FIR filed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 15(c) and 27(a) of the NDPS Act. He argued that despite the fact that there were 18 witnesses involved in the case and none had been cross-examined, the trial had not moved forward for more than a year and a half while he had been imprisoned for around three years.

The petitioner claimed that even though he was found in possession of illegal goods in commercial quantities, Section 37 of the NDPS Act—which addresses non-bailable offenses—was nevertheless subordinate to the promise under Article 21, which guarantee was also acknowledged by the NDPS Act.

In order to prove that people who are awaiting trial under the NDPS Act are eligible for normal bail despite being placed in detention under Section 37, the petitioner used the Supreme Court's ruling in Shariful Islam @ Sarif v. State of West Bengal. Sujit Tiwari v. State of Gujarat and Others, in which the Supreme Court ruled that a person in imprisonment for longer than two years was entitled to bail, was also cited.

On the other hand, the State argued that the trial could not continue because some of the co-accused had not yet been apprehended.

Case Title: Naib Singh v. State of Haryana

Citation: CRM-M-29466-2022