Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Bail to Woman in NDPS Case, Dilutes Section 37 Rigours Due to Prolonged Incarceration
Case Name: Kamaljit Kaur @ Kamal vs. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 01.09.2025
Citation: CRM-M No. 41381 of 2025.
Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel.
Held: The High Court allowed the second petition for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) filed by the petitioner in connection with offences under Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). Despite the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court found that prolonged incarceration of over two years, coupled with delays in the trial not attributable to the petitioner, diluted the rigours of Section 37 in light of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court held that the right to a speedy trial is an integral facet of the right to life and liberty, and prolonged pre-trial detention, without justifiable cause, cannot be sustained.
Summary: The case arose from FIR No. 172 dated 26.08.2023 registered at Police Station City South Moga, District Moga, alleging recovery of 50 loose intoxicant tablets (total 6.85 grams Etizolam) from the petitioner. The petitioner had remained in custody since her arrest on 26.08.2023. While the challan was presented on 14.11.2023 citing 14 prosecution witnesses, only 2 had been examined and 3 partly examined till the date of decision.
The petitioner argued that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with, and that the trial had been unduly delayed, resulting in her continued incarceration for more than two years. It was urged that such prolonged detention was unjustified, particularly when the petitioner had earlier withdrawn her bail plea but since then had suffered an additional year of custody without substantial trial progress. Reliance was placed on the High Court’s earlier ruling in Rafiq Khan vs. State of Haryana (CRA-S-2332-2023), which laid down principles for maintainability and consideration of successive bail pleas, and on Kulwinder vs. State of Punjab (CRM-M-64074-2024), which drew upon Supreme Court precedents including Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980), Abdul Rehman Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak (1992), Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023), and other cases emphasizing the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial.
The State opposed the petition, highlighting the seriousness of the allegations and the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. However, the Court noted that the trial had been procrastinating, no likelihood of abscondence or interference with evidence was shown, and further detention would amount to punitive imprisonment before conviction.
Decision: The High Court allowed the petition and granted regular bail to the petitioner, subject to stringent conditions, including non-misuse of liberty, non-tampering with evidence, non-commission of offences while on bail, depositing her passport with the trial court, furnishing monthly affidavits of non-involvement in any fresh offence, and maintaining communication with the Investigating Officer. The Court clarified that in case of any breach, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail. Importantly, the Court emphasized that prolonged incarceration in the face of delayed trials undermines the constitutional mandate of Article 21, and conditional liberty must prevail over statutory rigours when delay is not attributable to the accused.