Safiya Malik

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted bail to an individual facing charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act due to significant delays in trial proceedings. The court, while stating the severity of the allegations, held that prolonged incarceration without conclusion of the trial constitutes a violation of fundamental rights.

The case involves an individual who had been in judicial custody since May 1, 2023, following his arrest in connection with a narcotics-related offense. According to the case records, law enforcement authorities, acting on specific intelligence, intercepted a vehicle at approximately 7:15 AM. The vehicle, bearing registration number HP-66-6649, was stopped for routine checking by the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) and Cyber Cell, Kullu. The accused was reportedly driving the vehicle, and upon questioning, he displayed signs of nervousness, prompting the officers to conduct a thorough search.

During the search, law enforcement officials allegedly recovered 1.985 kilograms of charas concealed inside the vehicle. Independent witnesses were associated with the search process to ensure procedural compliance. Following the discovery, the authorities seized the contraband, completed necessary legal formalities, and took the accused into custody. Subsequently, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered under Sections 20 and 25 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Bhunter, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.

The accused was produced before the Magistrate, and based on the nature of the charges and the commercial quantity of contraband recovered, his bail application was rejected at the trial court level. The prosecution stated that the offense fell within the purview of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for the grant of bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics.

The accused, through legal counsel, filed a bail petition before the High Court, asserting that his continued detention was in violation of his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The defense argued that despite the lapse of nearly two years, only seven out of sixteen prosecution witnesses had been examined. It was contended that the delay in concluding the trial was not due to any conduct on the part of the accused but was rather attributable to procedural lapses by the prosecution and systemic inefficiencies in the judicial process.

Citing multiple Supreme Court precedents, including Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, the defense argued that even in cases involving serious offenses, prolonged incarceration without trial constitutes a denial of justice. The defense further stated that in a previous order dated October 14, 2024, the High Court had directed the trial court to expedite proceedings. However, the prosecution failed to ensure timely examination of witnesses, thereby prolonging the accused's detention.

The prosecution, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the bail application, asserting that the delay was not extraordinary and that trial proceedings had already commenced. The prosecution contended that the gravity of the offense warranted continued detention of the accused to prevent the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

The High Court carefully examined the case record, prosecution's status report, and the arguments advanced by both parties before delivering its judgement. The court stated the seriousness of the charges and the commercial quantity of contraband involved. However, it noted that procedural delays in the trial process could not be used to justify indefinite incarceration. The court observed:

"Speedy trial has been held to be the right of an accused, and infringement of the same constitutes a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The prosecution agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground of the seriousness of the offense when the delay in conclusion of trial is not at the behest of the accused but is attributable to the prosecution."

The court further examined whether the conditions outlined under Section 37 of the NDPS Act completely barred the grant of bail. It remarked:

"Section 37 of the Act does not prevent the court from considering bail where the trial is unreasonably delayed. An accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and prolonged incarceration without conclusion of the trial amounts to pre-trial conviction."

The court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, in which the apex court had ruled that “however serious a crime may be, an accused has the right to a speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.” The judgment observed that when trials are excessively delayed, courts must take a balanced approach while considering bail.

The court also noted the Supreme Court’s observation in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, wherein it was held that "gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion."

Additionally, the court considered Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., where the Supreme Court held that “freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for an indefinite period, especially when his guilt is yet to be proved.”

Based on the foregoing analysis, the High Court allowed the bail petition and ordered the release of the accused upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two local sureties of the same amount. The court imposed the following conditions:

• The accused shall make himself available for interrogation whenever required and regularly attend trial proceedings.
• He shall not tamper with prosecution evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner.
• He shall not make any inducement, threat, or promise to witnesses in the case.
• He shall not leave the country without prior permission from the court.

The court stated that if the accused misuses his liberty or violates any of these conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.

Case Title: Ses Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Case Number: Cr. MP(M) No. 2 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sandeep Sharma

[Read/Download order]