Bail granted in a 300-gram heroin case after eighteen months as an undertrial
Justice Sumeet Goel held that further detention was not warranted, and imposed eight conditions including a monthly affidavit that the accused has committed no fresh offence.
A man in custody since March 2025 on a charge of possessing 300 grams of heroin has been granted regular bail by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, on his second bail petition and over the State's objection that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act barred it. Justice Sumeet Goel, in an oral order, held that further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial was not warranted in the facts and circumstances, and released him on eight conditions.
The case against him
The petition was the second, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for regular bail in FIR No. 21 dated 3 March 2025, registered at Police Station Lopoke in Amritsar district under Sections 21-C and 27-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The gravamen of the FIR is the alleged recovery of 300 grams of heroin and Rs 3,10,000 said to be drug money.
Mr. Rishu Mahajan appeared for the petitioner and Mr. Jaypreet Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the State.
The two provisions invoked place the case at the serious end of the statute. Section 21 deals with contraventions involving manufactured drugs and preparations, with clause (c) applying where the quantity involved is a commercial quantity. Section 27-A punishes financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders. Both carry the consequence that Section 37 applies, which is what the State pressed.
What was argued, and the stage of the trial
For the petitioner it was urged that he had been in custody since 3 March 2025, that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act had not been scrupulously complied with so that the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects, that the trial was delayed and the liability for that delay could not be fastened on him, and that he had by then suffered incarceration of more than a year and six months.
The State opposed the petition on the seriousness of the allegations and on Section 37 of the NDPS Act, under which bail in a commercial quantity case cannot be granted unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit an offence on bail. A custody certificate dated 23 September 2026, placed on record by the State at the hearing the day before the order, was taken on record.
The order sets out the position of the trial. The petitioner was arrested on 3 March 2025 and the challan against him was presented on 27 August 2025. Twelve prosecution witnesses have been cited in all.
What the order does not do is record a finding under Section 37 that there are reasonable grounds for believing the petitioner not guilty. It rests instead on the length of the custody set against the stage of the trial: eighteen months served, a challan filed thirteen months before the order, and twelve witnesses still to be examined.
Order
Holding that further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial was not warranted, Justice Goel allowed the petition and ordered his release on regular bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court or duty magistrate.
Eight conditions were attached over and above any the trial court may impose. The petitioner is not to misuse the liberty granted, not to tamper with any oral or documentary evidence during the trial, not to absent himself on any date before the trial, not to commit any offence while on bail, and not in any manner to try to delay the trial. He must deposit his passport, if any, with the trial court. He must give his cellphone number to the investigating officer or the station house officer and not change it without the prior permission of the trial court or the Illaqa Magistrate. And on the first working day of every month he must file an affidavit before the trial court stating that he has not been involved in the commission of any offence since his release.
The order adds its own enforcement mechanism: if the petitioner is found to have been involved in any offence after being enlarged on bail, whether on the basis of his own affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move forthwith for cancellation of his bail, a plea which will then be decided on its merits. On breach of any condition, or on any other sufficient cause being shown, the State or the complainant is at liberty to move for cancellation. The order records that nothing said in it is to be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, and pending miscellaneous applications stood disposed of.