Introduction:

In the case titled Yash Pal Thakur v. State, adjudicated by the Himachal Pradesh High Court on June 3, 2025, the central issue revolved around the prolonged pre-trial incarceration of an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The petitioner, Yash Pal Thakur, had been in custody for over one year and nine months since his arrest on July 31, 2023. The primary grievance presented before the Court was that despite this extended period of detention, the prosecution had failed to examine even a single witness or make any meaningful headway in commencing the trial. The petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Harsh Sharol, moved the bail application because such a delay violated the petitioner’s fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The State, represented by Additional Advocate General Jitender Sharma, opposed the petition, citing the petitioner’s criminal history and the seriousness of the offence. The High Court, however, observed that the delay was not attributable to the petitioner and held that continued incarceration in the absence of trial proceedings infringed upon the petitioner’s rights. Accordingly, the Court granted bail, laying down critical observations regarding the intersection of bail jurisprudence, the right to a speedy trial, and procedural fairness under the NDPS Act.

Arguments from the Petitioner:

Advocate Harsh Sharol, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the accused had been falsely implicated and that the prosecution’s case lacked prima facie merit insofar as the petitioner had no proven connection to the alleged contraband. It was submitted that 16.01 grams of heroin was seized, which qualifies as an intermediate quantity under the NDPS Act, thereby invoking a less stringent threshold for bail under Section 37. Sharol contended that while serious allegations had been made, no charges had been framed, no witnesses had been examined, and no concrete steps had been taken to move the trial forward despite the passage of nearly two years. Relying on the principles of parity, it was further emphasised that the co-accused had already been granted bail. The petitioner’s right to a speedy trial, enshrined under Article 21, had been infringed, and the delay was entirely on the part of the prosecution and not due to any obstruction or tactics adopted by the petitioner. Sharol also submitted that the incarceration had served no legal or procedural purpose, as the trial was yet to begin and the petitioner had shown no conduct indicating a risk of absconding or influencing the investigation.

Arguments from the State:

Additional Advocate General Jitender Sharma, representing the State, opposed the bail application on multiple grounds. He submitted that the petitioner had a tainted history, with two FIRs pending against him and a prior conviction under the NDPS Act. Sharma argued that releasing such an individual could endanger public order and undermine the gravity of the offence. Given the nature of the NDPS offence, the State contended that Section 37 imposed stringent conditions on the grant of bail and that these conditions were not satisfied in the present case. Further, the State emphasised the risk of the petitioner absconding or committing a similar offence if released. While the delay in trial proceedings was acknowledged, it was submitted that the seriousness of the crime, in conjunction with the petitioner’s antecedents, ought to tilt the balance against the grant of bail.

Court’s Judgement:

Justice Rakesh Kainthla, delivering the order, placed significant reliance on the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial. The Court observed that the petitioner had been in custody since July 31, 2023, and during the intervening period of one year and nine months, the prosecution had failed to examine even a single witness. This, the Court held, was a substantial delay and was prima facie in violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights. Referring to the quantity of heroin seized, the Court highlighted that it fell within the range of “intermediate quantity,” which, while serious, did not attract the most stringent level of punishment under the NDPS framework. Justice Kainthla reiterated that in cases of prolonged pre-trial detention, courts are bound to consider the constitutional mandate of fairness and liberty.

The Court further noted that bail jurisprudence under the NDPS Act must be harmonised with Article 21. It acknowledged the petitioner’s prior conviction but made a crucial distinction by observing that criminal antecedents, by themselves, should not be the sole reason to deny bail, particularly when no progress had been made in the ongoing trial. The Court cited that a change in circumstances – namely, the undue delay in initiating the trial – allowed it to entertain the subsequent bail plea despite earlier rejections. Justice Kainthla remarked that if the prosecuting agencies are unable to ensure a timely trial, they forfeit the right to oppose bail merely on the ground of the gravity of the offence.

In conclusion, the Court stated, “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.” Accordingly, bail was granted with suitable conditions ensuring the petitioner’s presence during future trial proceedings. This judgment reinforced the principle that delay attributable to the prosecution cannot be a valid ground to continue indefinite detention and that the seriousness of the offence must be weighed against the constitutional right to liberty and fair trial.