Punjab & Haryana High Court grants bail under NDPS Act, invokes Article 21 to dilute rigours of Section 37

Case Name: Bikramjit Singh @ Bikram Singh @ Bikku v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: October 01, 2025
Citation: CRM-M-41199-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the bail petition of Bikramjit Singh @ Bikku, accused under Sections 21(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act, holding that prolonged custody and slow trial justified relaxation of Section 37’s strict bail conditions. The Court ruled that where an undertrial is a first-time offender, has undergone significant custody, and only a few witnesses have been examined, denial of bail would violate the fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Summary: The petitioner was implicated in FIR No. 45 dated March 8, 2024, registered at Police Station Chhehharta, Amritsar, after the recovery of 500 grams of heroin from co-accused Gurpreet Singh and Rupinder Singh. Based on their disclosure statements, others including Manpreet Singh, Harmanpreet Singh, Sharanjit Singh, and the present petitioner were nominated as accused. The petitioner was arrested on March 25, 2024.

Arguing for bail, counsel contended that the petitioner was falsely implicated, that mandatory safeguards under Sections 42 and 50 NDPS Act were not followed, and that he had no previous criminal record. He cited the Supreme Court rulings in Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. State of West Bengal (2022) and Hasanujjaman & Ors. v. State of West Bengal (2023), where bail was granted to first-time offenders in custody for over a year. The State opposed the plea citing commercial quantity and the statutory bar of Section 37, but conceded that the petitioner was a first-time offender and co-accused had already been granted bail.

Decision: The Court held that since the petitioner was in custody for over six months, with only three of thirty-one witnesses examined and no prior record, the rigour of Section 37 could be relaxed. It emphasized that Article 21 safeguards against unduly long incarceration and that parity with co-accused supported release. Accordingly, the petitioner was granted regular bail on furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate or Duty Magistrate, subject to monthly attendance before police and a ₹1,00,000 fixed deposit bond to ensure presence during trial.