2 Years Behind Bars, Trial Crawls: P&H High Court Overrides Section 37 Rigour, Grants Bail in NDPS Case
Case Name: Darshan Singh @ Jai Gopal v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 18 March 2026
Citation: CRM-M-43054-2025
Bench: Justice Manisha Batra
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that prolonged incarceration and delay in trial can override the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and bail may be granted even in cases involving commercial quantity, in order to uphold the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21.
Summary: The petitioner filed a second regular bail application under Section 483 BNSS in an NDPS case involving recovery of 2500 Alprazolam tablets, which constituted commercial quantity. As recorded, the petitioner was apprehended at the spot and arrested after failing to produce any valid license.
The petitioner argued that he had been falsely implicated and had remained in custody since 31.01.2024. It was further submitted that only 3 out of 15 prosecution witnesses had been examined and the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future. The prolonged incarceration, according to the petitioner, constituted a fresh ground for grant of bail.
The State opposed the petition on the ground of gravity of the offence and recovery of commercial quantity.
The High Court, however, noted that the petitioner had already undergone custody of more than two years and that trial was likely to take considerable time. It emphasized that continued detention should not become punitive and that every day of custody may constitute a fresh ground for bail.
Relying on multiple Supreme Court precedents, including Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court reiterated that delay in trial and prolonged incarceration can justify grant of bail notwithstanding Section 37 NDPS Act. It further observed that constitutional safeguards under Article 21 must prevail over statutory restrictions in appropriate cases.
The Court also took into account that the petitioner was not involved in any other similar offence and that there was no material to suggest likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence.
Decision: The High Court allowed the petition and granted regular bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions including non-interference with evidence and regular appearance before the trial court.