Vijay Alias Bijju Alias Vijay Sharma vs State Of Haryana

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

The present application has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 482 Cr.P.C.) for placing on record a detailed tabulation regarding the antecedents of the petitioner as Annexure A/1, in compliance with the directions of this Court.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The detailed tabulation regarding the antecedents of the petitioner is taken on record as Annexure A/1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 120 dated 25.05.2025, registered under Sections 15-C and 27-A of the NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad, during the pendency of the trial, in the interest of justice.

As per the prosecution case, on 25.05.2025, a police party headed by SI Mahabir Singh, while on patrol duty near Ramsara, received secret information that co-accused Mohan Lal would be coming towards Bhattu Kalan in a white Bolero Camper bearing registration No. RJ-10GB-0063, loaded with a heavy quantity of poppy husk. Acting upon the information, a naka was laid near the Rajasthan border, where co-accused Mohan Lal was apprehended along with the said vehicle. Upon search conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer, four plastic bags containing a total of 78 kg 670 grams of poppy husk were allegedly recovered from the vehicle. During investigation, co-accused Mohan Lal allegedly disclosed the name of Devender Kumar as his supplier. Devender Kumar was thereafter arrested on 05.07.2025 and, in his disclosure statement, allegedly named the present petitioner Vijay @ Bijju and his brother Vinay as being involved in the supply of the contraband. The present petitioner was subsequently brought on production warrant from another NDPS case and arrested in the present case on 12.08.2025. No contraband was recovered from his personal possession. The investigation has been completed and the final report under Section 193 BNSS has been presented before the learned Trial Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that no recovery whatsoever has been effected from his conscious possession. The alleged recovery of 78 kg 670 grams of poppy husk, though commercial in quantity, was effected from co-accused Mohan Lal and not from the petitioner. The petitioner was subsequently nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Devender Kumar, without there being any independent or corroborative evidence connecting him with the recovered contraband. It is further submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 12.08.2025 and has remained in custody since then. The investigation already stands concluded and the final report has been presented before the learned Trial Court. It is also pointed out that co-accused Vinay Kumar, who was allegedly nominated in the same disclosure statement, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Senior DAG, Haryana has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and opposes the prayer for bail, by submitting that 78 kg 670 grams of poppy husk, a commercial quantity, was recovered in the present case and the petitioner Vijay @ Bijjy was subsequently nominated in the disclosure statement of co-accused Devender Kumar. It is further submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and does not satisfy the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at considerable length and have carefully perused the paper book as well as the material placed on record with their able assistance.

The right to a speedy trial is an integral facet of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The constitutional mandate is not confined merely to ensuring a fair trial but also obligates the State to conclude criminal proceedings within a reasonable time so that the process itself does not become punitive.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, 1980 (1) SCC 81, authoritatively held that the right to a speedy trial is an essential and integral part of Article 21, and that any procedure which permits prolonged incarceration without expeditious trial cannot be regarded as fair, just or reasonable. The aforesaid principles are in consonance with the Constitution Bench decisions in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, 1992 (1) SCC 225, and P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, 2002 (4) SCC 578, wherein it was held that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right flowing from Article 21 and constitutional courts are duty-bound to intervene wherever inordinate and unexplained delay results in denial of substantive justice.

Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 322 and in Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 (2) SSC(Criminal) 271, the Court categorically held that "the right to a speedy trial, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence." It was further held that prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without commencement or reasonable progress of the trial, effectively converts pre-trial detention into a form of punishment and cannot be constitutionally sustained. The Court observed that if the State or the prosecuting agency is unable to secure an accused's fundamental right to a speedy trial, it cannot oppose the grant of bail merely on the ground of the seriousness of the allegations, as Article 21 prevails over statutory restrictions where continued incarceration becomes oppressive and justified.

This constitutional position has acquired greater significance in prosecutions under special statutes containing restrictive bail provisions. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is undoubtedly a stringent penal statute enacted to combat the menace of illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The principle was specifically applied to prosecutions under the NDPS Act in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352. The Apex Court held that Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be construed so rigidly as to compel indefinite incarceration of an undertrial merely because the trial has not progressed. The Court observed that a literal interpretation of Section 37, divorced from constitutional values, would amount to sanctioning punitive detention before conviction. It was emphatically held that where the State is unable to conclude the trial within a reasonable time, the rigours of Section 37 necessarily yield to the constitutional mandate of Article 21. The Court further observed that Section 436A Cr.P.C. applies even to prosecutions under special statutes and constitutes an important legislative safeguard against indefinite pretrial detention.

Recently, in Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109 and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC Online SC 1693, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that prolonged incarceration militates against the most cherished fundamental right under Article 21. The Court observed that where the accused has remained in custody for an unduly long period and the trial is nowhere near completion, constitutional liberty must prevail over the statutory embargo contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Court succinctly held that conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo when the constitutional guarantee itself stands threatened. Similarly, the Apex Court has recently reaffirmed these constitutional principles in.

Thus, the legal position that emerges from the above authorities is that while offences under the NDPS Act are undoubtedly grave and the statutory conditions governing bail are stringent, the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21 remains paramount. Courts are required to balance the societal interest in effective prosecution with the individual's fundamental right to personal liberty. Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial without meaningful progress in the trial cannot be justified merely by invoking the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In such exceptional circumstances, Constitutional Courts are duty-bound to harmonise the statutory restrictions with the fundamental right to personal liberty and ensure that pre-trial detention does not degenerate into punishment before adjudication of guilt. Where delay is inordinate and not attributable to the accused, constitutional courts are empowered to grant appropriate relief so as to prevent violation of Article 21.

It is equally relevant to note that while Section 37 prescribes stringent conditions for grant of bail, the NDPS Act itself reflects the legislative intent that such prosecutions should proceed expeditiously. Section 36 empowers the Government to constitute Special Courts for the very purpose of ensuring speedy trial of NDPS offences. Therefore, the statutory scheme itself proceeds on the assumption that greater restrictions on bail are constitutionally sustainable only when accompanied by equally expeditious adjudication. Where the State fails to provide the infrastructure necessary for speedy disposal, continued reliance upon Section 37 alone would produce an unconstitutional imbalance between individual liberty and societal interest. Delay defeats that legislative premise. If trials remain pending for years because of systemic inadequacies, repeated adjournments, non-production of witnesses, or institutional delays not attributable to the accused, continued incarceration ceases to be preventive and assumes a punitive character.

Be that as it may, the alleged recovery of 78 kg 670 grams of poppy husk, which is commercial in quantity, was effected from co-accused Mohan Lal and not from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner was subsequently nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Devender Kumar. The petitioner is in custody since 12.08.2025, the investigation already stands completed and the final report has been presented before the learned Trial Court. Co-accused Vinay Kumar, who was allegedly nominated in the same disclosure statement, has also been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. Having regard to the period of custody already undergone and the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:-