Delay in trial cannot be treated as a “panacea” for every accused facing serious criminal charges, the Gujarat High Court observed while rejecting the fourth bail plea of a man accused of trafficking Mephedrone worth Rs 51.22 lakh.Justice Hasmukh D Suthar, in an order dated September 2, held that the accused could not rely on the delay in trial after finding that he and his co-accused had themselves contributed to the delay.The court was hearing a fourth bail application filed by Badrudin Bangdiwala. Bangdiwala has been in custody since March 2024 in connection with a First Information Report (FIR) registered in Surat under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS).What is the caseAccording to the prosecution’s case, as recorded in the order, a raiding team acting on a tip-off intercepted a silver Verna car near the Bhatiya Check Post in the presence of panch witnesses. The team allegedly found three people, including Bangdiwala, travelling from Madhya Pradesh with the contraband.It recovered 512.2 grams of Mephedrone, worth Rs 51.22 lakh, from two of the accused.While Bangdiwala is named as accused No. 1 in the FIR, accused No. 4, Iliyas alias Ilu Abdul Hanif alias Annubhai Abdul Hamid Shah, who allegedly supplied the contraband, remains absconding. Accused No. 5, the intended recipient, has already secured bail from a coordinate bench.Also Read | ‘Country’s biggest fight’: Amit Shah outlines roadmap for ‘drug-free’ India by 2029Appearing for Bangdiwala, Advocates Zubin Bharda and Kishan Daiya argued he has been in jail for over two years without substantial progress in the trial, and that nothing was recovered from his personal possession.Story continues below this adAdditional Public Prosecutor Vrunda Shah, representing the Gujarat Government, opposed the plea, saying it was the fourth successive application without any change in circumstances.Shah argued that Bangdiwala was allegedly transporting the contraband in his own vehicle and was in direct contact with both the supplier and the intended recipient, who are both still missing.What the court saidThe court rejected the argument that Bangdiwala was not in conscious possession of the contraband. It noted that he had travelled with the co-accused, owned and drove the vehicle, and went to Madhya Pradesh to collect the delivery. In view of these circumstances, the court held that he was “considered to be in conscious possession of the alleged contraband” under the NDPS Act.The court further held that the allegations attracted the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The provision makes the offence non-bailable and imposes stringent conditions for granting bail.Story continues below this adOn the issue of delay in the trial, the court considered a report submitted by the 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, and found that the accused were largely responsible for the delay.Also Read | 3.9 lakh drug cases pending, Centre pushes states to set up special courtsThe order records that Bangdiwala engaged a lawyer only on December 3, 2024, nine months after his arrest, and one of the co-accused got one on January 30, 2025. Afterwards, the accused filed separate discharge applications on different dates between February and May 2025, further delaying the proceedings.“No one has the right to play with the system or to take advantage of his own wrong,” the court observed.‘Bail is an exception’Citing several recent Supreme Court judgments, the court held that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 does not override the mandatory “twin conditions” prescribed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.Story continues below this adIt reiterated that where an accused is charged with an offence involving commercial quantities of narcotic substances, “grant of bail is an exception and refusal of bail is the rule.”Also Read | ‘2 young children lost lives’: Mumbai court denies bail to students in drug overdose caseThe court also rejected Bangdiwala’s claim of parity with accused No. 5, who had earlier been granted bail. It noted that the coordinate bench, while granting bail to the co-accused, had not recorded satisfaction regarding the statutory requirements under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court further found that Bangdiwala’s alleged role was on a “graver” footing.Accordingly, the court dismissed the bail application and directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within 10 weeks. It asked both the applicant and the prosecution to cooperate in expediting the trial and permitted the trial court to secure the accused’s presence through virtual mode, where necessary.