Article 21 Cannot Be Held Hostage to Section 37 NDPS Act: Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail After Holding that Prolonged Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Become Punishment

Case Name: Vishal Kalyan @ Locha v. State of Punjab

Date of Judgment: 22 July 2026

Citation: CRM-M-38797-2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21 cannot be eclipsed by the statutory rigours of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. While recognising the stringent bail restrictions under the NDPS Act, the Court observed that those restrictions cannot justify indefinite incarceration where the prosecution has failed to ensure meaningful progress of the trial.

The Court reiterated that pre-trial detention is intended to secure the presence of the accused during trial and not to inflict punishment before conviction. Once investigation is complete, no recovery remains to be effected, and the delay in trial is not attributable to the accused, continued custody assumes a punitive character and violates the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty.

Summary: The petitioner sought regular bail in a prosecution under Sections 21-C, 25, 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act after his earlier bail petition had been withdrawn. The prosecution case originated from the recovery of one kilogram of heroin from a co-accused. The petitioner himself was neither named in the FIR nor found in possession of any contraband. His implication rested solely upon disclosure statements allegedly made by co-accused persons during investigation.

The petitioner argued that he had remained in judicial custody for nearly eleven months, the investigation had already concluded, no further custodial interrogation was required, and the trial had made no meaningful progress. It was submitted that his continued detention solely because of the seriousness of the allegations amounted to an infringement of his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The State opposed the petition by relying upon the gravity of the allegations and the embargo contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, contending that the petitioner had failed to satisfy the stringent statutory conditions governing the grant of bail.

Justice Virinder Aggarwal undertook an extensive examination of the constitutional jurisprudence governing prolonged pre-trial detention. Referring to Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh, and Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement, the Court reiterated that Article 21 continues to operate even in prosecutions under special statutes containing restrictive bail provisions.

The Court observed that the legislative justification for the stringent bail restrictions under Section 37 is intrinsically linked with the expectation of expeditious trials through Special Courts constituted under Section 36 of the NDPS Act. Where the State fails to ensure prompt adjudication because of systemic delays, repeated adjournments or non-production of witnesses, continued reliance upon Section 37 alone produces an unconstitutional imbalance between societal interest and individual liberty.

Applying these principles, the Court noted that the petitioner had not been named in the FIR, no contraband had been recovered from his possession, and his alleged involvement rested only upon disclosure statements of co-accused. Investigation had concluded, yet not even a single prosecution witness had been examined. The delay was not attributable to the petitioner, making the prospect of an early conclusion of trial remote.

The Court further held that the mere pendency of other criminal cases could not by itself operate as an absolute bar to bail in the absence of any conviction. In these circumstances, continued incarceration would serve no investigational purpose and would effectively convert pre-trial detention into punishment before adjudication of guilt, contrary to the constitutional mandate of Article 21.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the petition and granted regular bail to the petitioner, subject to stringent conditions including non-interference with witnesses, disclosure of residential and financial particulars, restriction on foreign travel without permission, regular appearance before the trial court, and liberty to the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail in case of violation of any condition.