Almost 2 Yrs Passed, Not A Single Witness Was Examined: HP High Court Grants Bail to NDPS Accused, Cites Violation Of Fundamental Rights

The bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that the petitioner has remained in custody for one year and nine months. It was further observed that during this period, the prosecution failed to examine a single witness. Thus, the court deemed such a delay to be violative of the petitioner's fundamental right to a speedy trial.

The court remarked, “The petitioner has been in custody since 31.07.2023, and keeping in view the quantity stated to have been found in possession of the petitioner, the failure to conclude the trial within one year and nine months assumes significance and justifies the plea of the petitioner that his right to a speedy trial is being violated”.

The petitioner, represented by Advocate Harsh Sharol, was apprehended by the police along with two other individuals in possession of 16.01 grams of heroin. However, the petitioner claimed that he had no connection with the contraband and was falsely implicated. Advocate Sharol contended that the petitioner ought to be granted bail on the principle of parity as the co-accused was already released on bail. It was further submitted that the petitioner's right to a speedy trial was being violated, as he had remained in custody for over one year and nine months without the initiation of the trial.

The State, represented by Additional Advocate General Jitender Sharma, opposed the petition condensing that the petitioner has a history of criminal involvement. It was submitted that two FIRs were pending against him and he was also convicted in a separate NDPS case.

The bench observed that while a previous bail application was dismissed a subsequent application could be entertained upon a change in circumstances. The court also noted that the delay in the trial proceedings was not attributable to the petitioner, but rather to the prosecution. The court also observed that “if the State or any prosecuting agency, including the Court concerned, has no wherewithal to provide the right of speedy trial to the accused, then the bail should not be opposed on the ground that the crime is serious”.

Emphasising the accused's right to a speedy trial, the bench held that continued incarceration with the absence of progress in a trial amounts to a violation of such right. The court reiterated that criminal antecedents alone should not bar the grant of bail in cases of prolonged detention. “The petitioner has undergone incarceration for more than one year and nine months. The trial has not yet commenced, and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial. Keeping in view the quantity of heroin, further incarceration of the petitioner is not justified”, the court stated.

The bench also acknowledged that the quantity recovered from the petitioner was an intermediate quantity. Thus, the bench granted bail to the petitioner, considering the quantity of contraband, duration of custody and the lack of progress in the trial.

For Petitioner: Advocate Harsh Sharol

For Respondent: Additional Advocate General Jitender Sharma

Case Title: Yash Pal Thakur v State (2025:HHC:17295)