Punjab & Haryana High Court grants regular bail in 160 kg poppy husk case, cites prolonged incarceration and delayed trial
Case Name: Jaspreet Singh @ Jassi v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: October 08, 2025
Citation: CRM-M-40670-2024
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the regular bail petition of Jaspreet Singh @ Jassi, accused under Sections 15, 29, and 61 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The Court observed that the petitioner had already undergone more than one year and eight months in custody, while only one of twenty-one prosecution witnesses had been examined. It held that the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act must be read harmoniously with Article 21 of the Constitution, ensuring that prolonged incarceration does not defeat the right to speedy trial. The Court emphasized that bail cannot be denied merely due to procedural lapses in investigation when the trial is unreasonably delayed.
Summary: The FIR No. 162 dated October 26, 2023, was registered at Police Station City-I, Malerkotla, after a raid allegedly recovered 160 kilograms of poppy husk from the petitioner and co-accused. The petitioner had been in custody since his arrest and contended that the investigation suffered from procedural lapses, including the investigating officer’s erroneous reference to Section 43 instead of Section 42 of the NDPS Act in the ruqa and report. The Court took note of departmental action initiated against the investigating and supervisory officers for negligence.
Justice Sumeet Goel referred to a series of constitutional and Supreme Court precedents — Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81, Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225, Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 INSC 311, and Chitta Biswas v. State of West Bengal (2020) — to reiterate that pre-trial detention cannot become punitive. The Court quoted extensively from its own decision in Kulwinder v. State of Punjab (CRM-M-64074-2024), explaining that prolonged custody coupled with a sluggish trial dilutes the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act.
It observed that although the recovery involved a commercial quantity, the petitioner’s fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 warranted consideration. The Court clarified that the petitioner’s involvement in another case could not, by itself, justify indefinite detention.
Decision: The High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner subject to stringent conditions, including deposit of passport, disclosure of contact number to the investigating officer, and submission of monthly affidavits affirming non-involvement in new offences. It further directed that any breach would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail. The Court reiterated that nothing in the order shall prejudice the merits of the pending trial.