Raghuvir Singh @ Dhanna vs State Of Punjab

Headnote AI-drafted · Editorially reviewed

The petitioner filed his third petition for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, arising out of FIR No.165 dated 02.08.2023 under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, relating to recovery of 55 loose tablets of Etizolam, a commercial quantity. The State opposed bail on the ground that the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act had not been satisfied.

The Court examined a line of Supreme Court precedents including Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, Santosh Pawar v. State of Chhattisgarh, Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, Ismail Khan @ Pathan v. State of Rajasthan, Hasanujjaman v. State of West Bengal, and Nandlal Mondal v. State of West Bengal, which collectively held that prolonged incarceration militates against the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and that the constitutional principles can override the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act when trial is unduly delayed.

Finding that the petitioner had been in custody for over two years and six months, had no criminal antecedents, that the trial was not likely to conclude in the near future with six out of thirteen prosecution witnesses yet to be examined, and that the investigation was already complete, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail subject to conditions, observing that there was substantial compliance with Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Catchwords: bail NDPS Act commercial quantity prolonged incarceration Section 37 NDPS Act twin conditions Article 21 fundamental rights Etizolam undue delay in trial Section 436-A CrPC Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023