Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Regular Bail in NDPS Case Involving Etizolam Tablets After Noting Prolonged Custody and Delay in Trial
Case Name: Harjit Singh @ Sonu Doctor vs. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 12 November 2025
Citation: CRM-M-53756-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the petition for regular bail after noting that the petitioner had already undergone incarceration for over 11 months, the challan had been filed, only two out of eight prosecution witnesses had been examined, and the trial was progressing slowly. The Court held that although commercial quantity was involved, resulting in the application of Section 37 NDPS Act, prolonged custody and delay in trial diluted the rigour of Section 37 in light of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court further observed that the petitioner had earlier been granted interim bail due to non-receipt of the FSL report and had not misused the concession, which weighed in favour of bail.
Summary: The FIR alleged recovery of 95 intoxicating tablets containing 11.875 grams of Etizolam from the petitioner, leading to registration of offences under the NDPS Act, with Section 22 replacing Section 21 at a later stage. The petitioner argued that he had cooperated with investigation, had no other criminal involvement, and that mandatory procedural requirements under the NDPS Act were not properly complied with. The State opposed the bail, citing seriousness of allegations and statutory embargo under Section 37. The Court examined the custody certificate dated 11.11.2025 and noted that the petitioner had spent more than 11 months in custody and there was no allegation of misuse of liberty during interim bail. The Court also considered the earlier withdrawal of a bail petition, clarifying that successive petitions are maintainable upon changed circumstances, including prolonged incarceration. The Court relied on its earlier decision in Kulwinder vs. State of Punjab, which discussed balancing the mandate of Section 37 with the fundamental right to speedy trial, and quoted Supreme Court precedents including Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain and Hussainara Khatoon to reaffirm protection against punitive pre-trial detention.
Decision: The petition was allowed and the petitioner was ordered to be released on regular bail upon furnishing surety/bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court or Duty Magistrate. Additional conditions were imposed, including not misusing the concession, not tampering with evidence, appearing before the Court on all dates, depositing passport if any, and filing a monthly affidavit confirming non-involvement in new offences. The State was granted liberty to seek cancellation of bail in case of violation. The Court clarified that no observation in the order shall affect the merits of trial.