Delhi High Court Judgment on Bail Rights of Accused in Criminal Cases
Introduction
The High Court of Delhi was posed with the question as to whether an accused prosecuted for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) is eligible for grant of regular bail after having suffered long incarceration and delay in the trial of the case in Harjinder Singh @ Rindi v. The State (NCT of Delhi).
A learned Single Judge bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav was tasked with examining the conflict between strict conditions for grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act read with the fundamental right to personal liberty and speedy trial of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Passing grant of regular bail, the Court considered the time during which the accused suffered custody, the lacklustre pace of the trial and the lack of a realistic possibility of the trial concluding anytime soon. The Court did add that the observations made were limited to the purpose of granting bail and was in no way indicative of the merits of the underlying criminal trial.
This judgment assumes importance as it highlights that statutory limitations on grant of bail cannot be viewed myopically in a situation where the prolonged incarceration of an accused prior to trial comes in conflict with his fundamental rights under Article 21.
The High Court of Delhi was posed with the question as to whether an accused prosecuted for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) is eligible for grant of regular bail after having suffered long incarceration and delay in the trial of the case in Harjinder Singh @ Rindi v. The State (NCT of Delhi).
A learned Single Judge bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav was tasked with examining the conflict between strict conditions for grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act read with the fundamental right to personal liberty and speedy trial of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Passing grant of regular bail, the Court considered the time during which the accused suffered custody, the lacklustre pace of the trial and the lack of a realistic possibility of the trial concluding anytime soon. The Court did add that the observations made were limited to the purpose of granting bail and was in no way indicative of the merits of the underlying criminal trial.
This judgment assumes importance as it highlights that statutory limitations on grant of bail cannot be viewed myopically in a situation where the prolonged incarceration of an accused prior to trial comes in conflict with his fundamental rights under Article 21.
Case Details
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Harjinder Singh @ Rindi v. The State (NCT of Delhi) |
| Court | High Court of Delhi at New Delhi |
| Date of Judgment/Order | 1 September 2026 |
| Bench | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav |
| Case Number | BAIL APPLN. 4848/2025 & CRL.M.A. 37315/2025 |
| CNR No. | DLHC011010652025 |
| FIR | FIR No. 63/2015, Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, Delhi |
| Nature of Matter | Criminal – Regular Bail |
| Primary Statute | Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 |
| Relevant Provisions | Sections 18, 21, 22, 25 and 29 NDPS Act; Section 37 NDPS Act |
| Constitutional Provision | Article 21 of the Constitution of India |
| Result | Regular bail granted subject to conditions |
The available judgment does not identify a separate reported law-journal citation; the case number and CNR are available in the court order.
Facts of the Case
This criminal revision application was preferred by virtue of FIR No. 63/2015 registered at Police Station Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, Delhi under Sections 18, 21, 22, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
As submitted by the prosecution, the applicant namely Harjinder Singh was arrested on 18 November 2015 based on information available with them. He was alleged to have been in possession of approximately 1 kg heroin recovered from his car, Verna.
Additionally, it was alleged by the prosecution that the applicant was part of a larger syndicate catering to supply of heroin to various States. The prosecution would rely on material collected during investigation which consisted of alleged recovery, vehicle seized, disclosure statements, call- detail- record connectivity, intercepted calls and forensic report based on voice samples.
Total nine accused persons were named in the FIR. Three accused were proclaimed offenders and regular bail was granted to five accused persons out of the remaining six. Hence, only the applicant was presently in judicial custody.
Advocate-on-record for the applicant mainly submitted that the applicant had been incarcerated for a long period of time and that there had been an inordinate delay in the trial. The Court here observed that based on the nominal roll placed before it, it appeared that the applicant had undergone custody of more than five years in the instant case. This was however disputed by the applicant as far as the computation of total period of incarceration was concerned.
Trial also had not proceeded at a very fast pace. Report filed by the trial court revealed that very few prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and the case involved voluminous evidence. Hence, trial was unlikely to be completed anytime soon.
Issues Before the Court
The main questions that arose for consideration before Delhi High Court were:
- applicant deserves grant of regular bail notwithstanding restrains laid down in Section 37 of NDPS Act
- Whether delay in completion of trial and prolonged incarceration can ever be relevant ground for grant of bail u/s 21 of Constitution
- stringent statutory bars under NDPS Act can bar a constitutional court from hearing an accused's plea for personal liberty and speedy trial?
- Whether facts and circumstances of case, stage of trial, period of custody, antecedents of accused and bail granted to other co accused warrant grant of bail
Arguments Presented
Arguments of the Petitioner
The applicant claimed that he was falsely implicated and he disputed parts of the purported recovery and investigation.
Specifically, Counsel drew attention to the alleged violations of Sections 41, 42, 50, 52A and 57 of the NDPS Act and submissions that these facts raised questions regarding prosecution version of events.
The applicant also placed reliance on:
- lengthy incarceration;
- delay in the trial;
- bail granted to other co-accused;
- precedent of interim bail being granted in the past and compliance with set conditions;
- lack of chances of destruction of evidence or absconding from the proceedings.
Lastly, it was highlighted that some of the offences complained of against the applicant were compounded/fell through and regular bail was even granted in a case by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Arguments of the Respondent/State
State was against grant of bail.
Prosecution relied on recovery of alleged 1kg of heroin which was alleged to be of commercial quantity, hence submitted that material placed on record consists of recovery statement, disclosure statement, CDR connectivity and intercepted calls/FSL material.
Further state relied on Section 37 NDPS Act which places very stringent conditions for grant of bail in cases where narcotic drug/psychoactive substance is of commercial quantity.
The prosecution also took recourse of applicant being a serial offender and alleged that on previous occasion he was granted interim bail and thereafter arrested in another case and proclaimed offender issued against him. State submitted that questions on availability arise in future.
Court's Observations and Reasoning
Below are some of the key points to take away from Delhi High Court’s order:
The Court recognized that the alleged recovery was of commercial quantity and accordingly, the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would usually apply in considering the bail application.
The Court did not ignore the statutory mandate just because the applicant had spent significant time in custody.
What the Court considered was whether those restrictions should apply in a manner that swallowed up all constitutional liberty under Article 21.
The Court reiterated that Article 21 guarantees personal liberty. Part of that liberty is the right to a speedy trial.
The Court cited authorities from the Supreme Court specifically dealing with prolonged incarceration and delayed trials such as Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial Prisoners) v. Union of India and Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb.
The takeaway from these decisions is that statutory restrictions on grant of bail do not absolutely trump concerns regarding unduly long incarceration where the trial itself cannot be concluded in reasonable time.
The crux of this decision is that Section 37 must not be interpreted in a manner which takes away constitutional liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India completely. This is particularly so when an undertrial has been incarcerated for a significantly long period and when there is no real chance of trial concluding soon.
This is not to say that every accused person in an NDPS case involving commercial quantities gets entitled to bail after they have spent a certain amount of time in jail.
What the Court looked into was the entire circumstance of the matter including the period of custody and the actual status of the trial.
The Court referred to Supreme Court decisions where it has been recognized that holding an accused in prison when the criminal trial itself is unduly delayed may raise constitutional concerns.
It specifically referred to Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial Prisoners) v. Union of India decision where the Supreme Court discussed how stringent bail provisions must be seen in light of the constitutional requirement of fair trial which includes right to speedy trial. Delhi HC used this principle to examine the undertrial’s application.
Delhi HC also relied on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, another recent Supreme Court decision where the court reiterated that restrictions in special enactments dealing with crime do not take away the constitutional court’s jurisdiction to enforce fundamental rights where extended incarceration violates Article 21.
Delhi HC applied the same principle to the facts in front of it.
The Court noted that very little progress has been made in the trial.
Considering the voluminous nature of the prosecution evidence, the Court was informed that the examination of prosecution witnesses was only around 50 (out of several hundred). The Court noted that at this pace, the trial would take a lot more time.
However, the Court noted that this delay was not entirely caused by the prosecution. The order mentions factors such as non-production/absence of accused persons in previous dates, pendency of proceedings involving absconding accused persons, COVID delays and other administrative/judicial delays.
In light of the overall length of incarceration and other circumstances, the Court held that such delays could be considered when dealing with bail applications.
The Court clarified that its observations were made solely in the context of dealing with the bail application.
Whether or not the alleged recovery was made in compliance with the NDPS Act and whether prosecution would ultimately succeed in proving charges against the applicant are questions that the trial court has to decide.
Granting bail to the applicant does not mean that he has been acquitted nor it means that he was found to be innocent.
Previous Judgments Considered by the Court
The Delhi High Court placed reliance on several key judgments on bail, delayed custody and speedy trial. :-
Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha
The Supreme Court observed that delay in custody can operate strongly against continuation of detention and viewed Article 21 with reference to Section 37 of NDPS Act. Delhi HC relied on the said principle while evaluating the applicant’s prolonged custody.
Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India
The verdict dealt with how stringent statutory bail conditions under special statutes interact with the constitutional right to speedy trial. Delhi HC relied on it to state that prolonged incarceration when allied with significant trial delay can lead to serious Article 21 issues.
Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb
The Supreme Court ruled that stringent bail conditions under special statutes do not oust the jurisdiction of constitutional courts to grant bail if continued detention violates fundamental rights.
Final Judgment / Decision
Regular bail was granted to Harjinder Singh by the Delhi High Court.
Passing order on merits, the Court took note of:
- more than five years spent in custody in the instant case,
- the investigation being complete and chargesheet being filed,
- delay in trial,
- how many witnesses were remaining to be examined,
- no real possibility of trial concluding anytime soon,
- personal liberty and speedy trial being a constitutional right, and
- facts regarding co-accused.
The applicant shall be released on regular bail with the conditions imposed by trial court.
Trial Court shall be directing two local sureties and imposing necessary conditions to ensure presence of applicant for proceedings. The investigating agency shall also be free to move the Court for cancellation of bail if the applicant is involved in a similar incident.
High Court clarified that nothing in this order shall be construed as appreciation of prosecution case against the applicant.
Legal Importance of the Judgment
Bail and Article 21
The order reflects that Article 21 still has relevance in cases where the courts are faced with extended periods of pre-trial incarceration.
While an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty via trial, bail is a matter of balancing individual freedoms with reasonable interests of criminal justice.
Prolonged incarceration can become constitutionally significant
The judgment confirms that the length of custody cannot always be divorced from the progress of the trial.
If years have passed since an accused has been in custody, the trial is not progressing quickly and there is no realistic prospect of it being brought to an early conclusion then his constitutional right to speedy trial becomes a legitimate consideration.
Special statutes do not operate in complete isolation
NDPS Act has attracted stringent bail conditions. However the order carves out the constitutional perspective of bail wherein prolonged incarceration ferments grave concerns of Article 21.On BailGrounds Higher Courts Can Consider Important Points
This is dependent on facts of each case. It does not override the statutory conditions for grant of bail.
Delay of trialMatters
Length of trial proceedings may be looked into rather than just taking note of the fact that a chargesheet has been filed.
No witnesses examined, evidence left, cause of delay and probable time needed to conclude can all amount to relevant factors.
Bail does not mean acquittal
Accused still continues to face the music of criminal prosecution. Observations made by the Court while granting bail usually do not decide the ultimate merits of a prosecution case. (Delhi HC ruled in this case).
Key Takeaways
- Article 21 protects personal liberty and the right to speedy trial.
- Section 37 of the NDPS Act continues to impose stringent bail requirements.
- Prolonged incarceration may become an important constitutional consideration when a trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable period.
- Courts can examine the actual progress of the trial while considering prolonged custody.
- Statutory restrictions on bail do not necessarily eliminate constitutional courts' power to protect fundamental rights.
- Grant of bail does not amount to acquittal or a finding that the accused is innocent.
- Bail conditions can be imposed to secure the accused's presence and protect the integrity of the proceedings.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Does this Delhi High Court judgment say every accused has a right to bail?
No. The judgment was based on the facts of the case. Each bail application depends on the relevant statutory provisions and facts. Every accused does not have an automatic right to bail. In the given case, prolonged custody and the likelihood of delayed trial were relevant considerations.
2. Can delaying someone’s freedom by putting them in jail be a reason to allow bail?
Yes. Delaying someone’s freedom by incarcerating them for long periods can be a ground for granting bail. This is especially relevant if the trial has been substantially delayed with no realistic chance of concluding it anytime soon. The constitutional guarantee of liberty under Article 21 may become relevant in such cases.
3. Doesn’t Section 37 of the NDPS Act take away all courts’ power to grant bail?
Section 37 lays down stringent conditions which must be satisfied before bail is granted in certain NDPS cases. The Delhi High Court’s decision was based on prior Supreme Court decisions that have recognized that statutory restrictions cannot trump constitutional rights in cases where prolonged incarceration triggers Article 21 concerns.
4. What is Article 21 and why does it matter for bail?
Article 21 guarantees liberty. The Supreme Court has recognized the right to speedy trial as a fundamental entitlement flowing from Article 21. So when deciding bail, the Court can take into account whether the accused has been in jail for too long before their trial begins.
5. So if there is a delay in trial, does that mean everyone gets bail?
No. Delay is just one factor which the Court can take into account. The court can look into the reasons for the delay, the accused’s conduct, stage of proceedings, nature of allegations, specific statutory restrictions on bail and other factors while deciding bail.
6. If someone is booked under a commercial quantity NDPS case, can they never get bail?
No. Commercial quantities attract the stricter restrictions of Section 37. But the constitutional courts can intervene in appropriate cases where Article 21 is at stake. This judgment shows that custody for prolonged periods and significant delay in trial can be taken into account.
7. Does this mean that if the trial is unlikely to end anytime soon, we can grant bail?
Courts can take into account the likely duration of the trial in deciding whether to keep the accused in custody. The Delhi High Court in this case expressly noted that the trial was unlikely to conclude anytime soon.
8. If someone gets bail, does it mean they have been proven innocent?
No. Granting bail simply allows the accused to stay out of jail while complying with certain conditions until the completion of the trial. The court hears all the evidence during trial and decides whether the accused is guilty or innocent.
9. If bail is granted, can it be cancelled?
Yes. Bail is granted with certain conditions. Depending on those conditions and other relevant circumstances, bail can be cancelled. Courts have laid down various situations where bail can be cancelled. In this case, the High Court allowed the investigating agency to cancel bail if the applicant participates in a similar drug case.
10. What does this judgment mean for undertrial prisoners?
It means that the right to speedy trial and personal liberty is important when you are an undertrial who has been in jail for most of the period between your crime and your trial because the criminal justice system is taking too long to complete your trial. However, the Courts will have to look at each bail application based on its own facts and the law.
Legal Consultation
You may like to consult Advocate BK Singh to get detailed legal opinion on this matter.
Advice on Bail depends upon FIR, relevant provisions, period of custody, stage of investigation or trail, criminal history and facts and circumstances of particular case.
