Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Through:- Mr. Supreet Singh Johal vs Ut Of J&K on 20 July, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Bail App No. 295/2025
Reserved on: 17.07.2026
Pronounced on: 20.07.2026
Uploaded on: 20.07.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full
Ramandeep Singh ....Petitioner
Through:- Mr. Supreet Singh Johal, Advocate.
v.
UT of J&K
.....Respondents
Through:- Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SKEHRI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking his enlargement on
regular bail in FIR No. 77/2022 registered at Police Station, Gangyal for
offences punishable under Sections 8 and 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 09.07.2022, a naka was
established by the police party near Peer Baba Kunjwani, Jammu, where a
vehicle bearing registration No. JK02AV-8157 was intercepted. During the
course of checking of the said vehicle, the police allegedly recovered 2.976
kilograms of opium from the cabin of the vehicle. On the basis of the said
recovery, the petitioner came to be arrested and aforesaid FIR was registered.
The petitioner has remained in custody since 09.07.2022.
3. The investigation in the matter was completed and the charge-sheet
came to be presented before learned Trial Court on 07.09.2022. Charges were
framed against the petitioner on 07.10.2022. The prosecution cited thirteen
witnesses in support of its case and out of the said witnesses, five witnesses
have been examined till date. The petitioner has, therefore, undergone
incarceration of nearly four years as an under-trial prisoner, whereas the trial
is still pending and its conclusion does not appear to be imminent.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that continued
incarceration of the petitioner for such a prolonged period has resulted in
infringement of his fundamental right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article
21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the petitioner has already
suffered substantial incarceration without determination of his guilt and that
the criminal trial, despite lapse of considerable time, is nowhere near
conclusion.
5. Learned counsel has also urged that petitioner is entitled to
consideration on the ground of parity as co-accused Manpreet Singh, who was
also facing trial in the same FIR, has already been granted regular bail by
learned Trial Court on 01.10.2022 and the said order was subsequently made
absolute on 17.10.2022.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed
the prayer for bail on the ground that the alleged recovery is of commercial
quantity and the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. It is
contended that in view of the statutory embargo contained under Section 37 of
the NDPS Act, the petitioner cannot seek bail merely on the ground of
Bail App No. 295/2025 Page 2 of 7
prolonged incarceration. It is submitted that the offence alleged against the
petitioner is serious in nature and has a deleterious impact on society.
7. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
8. There is no dispute with the proposition that offences involving
commercial quantity under the NDPS Act are governed by stringent
provisions and the restrictions contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act
are required to be kept in mind while considering a prayer for bail. Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ram Samujh, (1999) 9
SCC 429, while dealing with the object behind Section 37 of the NDPS Act,
observed that the provisions have been enacted keeping in view the
devastating impact of drug trafficking on society and that liberal approach in
granting bail in such cases may frustrate the object of the legislation.
9. Likewise, in Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Mohit Aggarwal, (2022)
4 SCC 713, Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that while considering bail in
commercial quantity cases, the Court must remain conscious of the twin
conditions incorporated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and should not
undertake an elaborate appreciation of evidence at the stage of bail.
10. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Meghalaya vs.
Lalrintluanga Sailo, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 537, reiterated that the statutory
restrictions contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be ignored
while considering bail applications for bail involving recovery of
commercial quantity of contraband.
11. However, at the same time, it is equally well enunciated that provisions
of Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be interpreted in a manner which
results in indefinite incarceration of an accused awaiting trial. The right to
Bail App No. 295/2025 Page 3 of 7
speedy trial is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secretary,
State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81, declared that the right to a speedy trial is a
fundamental right implicit in the guarantees of Article 21 and detaining a
person for an indefinite period is violative of this right.
13. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay
vs. R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225, strongly emphasized that speedy trial is a
fundamental aspect of the “Right to Life and Personal Liberty” implicit in
Article 21 of the Constitution and is in the interest of both the victim and the
accused.
14. The principle that statutory restrictions cannot completely override
constitutional rights has also been recognized by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713. While dealing with
stringent provisions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that constitutional courts are not powerless to grant bail
where incarceration becomes prolonged and the trial is unlikely to conclude
within a reasonable period. The Court observed that statutory restrictions,
though important, cannot be interpreted to defeat the fundamental right to
personal liberty.
15. The said principle was further reiterated in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain
vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, wherein Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed that while stringent provisions restricting bail have
to be respected, the Court cannot lose sight of the constitutional mandate of
Article 21 and the right of an accused to a fair and expeditious trial.
Bail App No. 295/2025 Page 4 of 7
16. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this
Court finds that the petitioner has remained in custody since July, 2022. The
petitioner has undergone incarceration of more than four years now as an
under-trial prisoner. Out of thirteen cited prosecution witnesses only five have
been examined till date. The prosecution at this pace is more likely to
consume another four years to finish the list.
17. It is significant that the witnesses who were most relevant for
establishing the alleged recovery and seizure have already been examined.
The prosecution has already placed before the Trial Court the testimony of the
witnesses connected with the alleged recovery of contraband. The remaining
witnesses are largely official witnesses, including the Investigating Officer
and witnesses relating to formal aspects of the case. Thus, the apprehension
that release of the petitioner would adversely affect the prosecution case does
not appear to carry substantial weight at this stage.
18. The Court is conscious that the alleged recovery is of commercial
quantity and that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted.
However, the Court cannot ignore the fact that the petitioner has remained
incarcerated for almost four years and the trial is still not concluded. The
possibility of completion of trial in the near future appears uncertain. The
liberty of an under-trial prisoner cannot be curtailed for an indefinite period
merely because the alleged offence falls under a stringent statute.
19. It needs to be emphasized that grant of bail in such circumstances does
not amount to an expression of opinion regarding the innocence of the
petitioner. The Court is not required to conduct a mini trial or record findings
on the merits of the prosecution case at this stage. The only consideration is
whether continued incarceration of the petitioner, in the peculiar facts and
Bail App No. 295/2025 Page 5 of 7
circumstances of the case, would be justified when balanced against his
fundamental right to personal liberty.
20. It is also relevant to notice that the alleged quantity recovered, though
falling within the category of commercial quantity, is 2.976 kilograms of
opium, which is only marginally above the prescribed commercial quantity
threshold. This factor by itself may not entitle the petitioner to bail, but when
considered cumulatively with prolonged incarceration, progress of trial,
examination of material witnesses and absence of any allegation regarding
misuse of liberty, it assumes significance.
21. Another circumstance which weighs with this Court is that the co-
accused Manpreet Singh has already been granted bail by learned Trial Court
and the said bail order has attained finality. Though the principle of parity is
not an absolute rule, similarly placed accused persons ordinarily deserve
similar treatment unless there are distinguishing circumstances. No such
distinguishing circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court.
22. The object of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is to ensure that persons
involved in serious narcotic offences do not misuse the concession of bail.
However, the provision cannot be construed as permitting incarceration of an
accused for years together without completion of trial. The constitutional
guarantee under Article 21 requires the Court to strike a balance between the
interest of society and the right of an individual to personal liberty.
23. Considering the totality of the circumstances, namely, the period of
incarceration undergone by the petitioner, the stage of trial, examination of
material prosecution witnesses, likelihood of further delay in conclusion of
proceedings, parity with the co-accused and the absence of any material
Bail App No. 295/2025 Page 6 of 7
indicating likelihood of misuse of liberty, this Court is of the considered view
that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail.
24. Accordingly, present petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be
released on bail on his furnishing a solvent surety bond to the tune of ₹1.00
lac (rupees one lac) to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court and a bond of
personal recognizance of the like amount to the satisfaction of Superintendent
of concerned jail subject to the following conditions that:
(i) he shall not jump over bail and tamper with prosecution evidence
or influence any witness;
(ii) he shall not leave territorial jurisdiction of the trial court without
prior permission;
(iii) he shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he
is accused:
(iv) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the courts or to any
police officer or tamper with evidence.
25. It is made clear that the observations made herein are only for the
purpose of deciding the present bail application and shall not be construed as
an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, which shall be decided by
the learned Trial Court independently on the basis of evidence led during the
trial.
26. The bail application stands disposed of accordingly.
(Rajesh Sekhri)
Judge
Jammu
20.07.2026
Paramjeet
Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes/No
Bail App No. 295/2025 Page 7 of 7
