CRM-M-65794- IN THE H (318) SUKHJINDER S STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. S MANISHA BATR 1. The Bharatiya Nagarik regular bail in cas Section 18(c), 25 1985 (for short “ 468, 471 and 473 o Tarn Taran. 2. As p doing patrolling d Canter Eicher bea persons were sittin Sukhjinder Singh -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH ER SINGH Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Vikas Gupta, Advocate for the pe Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition filed by the pe agarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for in case arising out of FIR No.25 date c), 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and “NDPS”) (Section 25 of NDPS d 473 of IPC added later on) at Police As per the allegations, on 14.04.20 lling duty at Naka T Point Nikka C er bearing registration No.PB02-EC e sitting. The person sitting on the dri Singh i.e. the present petitioner and the JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-65794-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.02.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA
the petitioner the petitioner under Section 483 of 3 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of 5 dated 14.04.2023 registered under s and Psychotropic Substances Act, DPS deleted later on) (Sections 419, Police Station Chohla Sahib, District .04.2023, the Police officials were kka Chohla, Fatehabad Road. One EC-7410 was stopped in which 02 the driver seat disclosed his name as and the other one disclosed his name M) 2026 oner
dent
of nt of nder Act, 419, strict were One h 02 e as ame AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.16 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-65794- as Harpal Singh @ Grams of opium w The petitioner and completed. 3. It is falsely implicated continued detentio incarceration for a not been much pro examined so far. is thus, urged that 4. Status counsel has argue from conscious po Act are attracted similar offences, i petitioner does not 5. This C for both the parties 6. The p There are no cha prosecution witnes of law that grant -2025 (O&M) 2 ingh @ Bhallu. On conducting sear pium was recovered which was taken er and co-accused were formally arres It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case. A false recovery ha etention would not serve any useful n for a period of over 02 years and 10 ch progress in the trial as only 03 pro . He is not involved in other cases d that the petition deserves to be allow Status report and custody certificate h argued that commercial quantity of c ous possession of the petitioner. The acted in this case. There are chanc nces, if extended benefit of bail. It es not deserve to be released on bail. This Court has heard the rival submis parties at considerable length. The petitioner is in custody for a peri o chances of conclusion of trial in witnesses have been examined so far grant of bail on account of delay g search of the vehicle, 2 KG 800 taken into possession by the Police. y arrested. Investigation now stands l for the petitioner that he has been very has been planted upon him. His useful purpose. He is in prolonged and 10 months. However, there has prosecution witnesses, have been r cases and has clean antecedents. It allowed. icate have been filed. Learned State ty of contraband had been recovered . The rigors of Section 37 of NDPS chances of petitioner’s committing il. It is, therefore, stressed that the bail. ubmissions made by learned counsel a period of 02 years and 10 months. rial in the near future as only 03 so far. It is well settled proposition delay in trial and long period of 800 lice. tands been His nged has been . It State ered DPS itting t the unsel nths. y 03 ition d of AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.16 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-65794- incarceration is to Reliance in this re Apex Court in Mo OnLine SC 352, in trial cannot be the imperative of S the Act. It was conditions are, m imprisonment is reformed. Relianc of West Bengal, S 14.09.2023 and R wherein the Hon’b who had been in incarceration milit under Article 21 o principles must ov the NDPS Act. 7. Relia Chhattishgarh & pronounced verdic 37 of NDPS Act w as it comes with completion of tria held that appella -2025 (O&M) 3 is to be considered in the light of this regard can be placed upon the o n Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. Sta 52, wherein it was held that grant of ot be said to be fettered under Sectio ve of Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. which was also observed that jails are o are, more often than not, appalling nt is that inmates are more likely eliance can also be placed upon Man al, Special Leave Petition (Criminal nd Rabi Prakash v. State of Odis Hon’ble Supreme Court had extended een incarcerated for a long period n militated against the most precious le 21 of the Constitution and in such ust override the statutory embargo c Reliance can also be placed upon h & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.48 verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court ob Act will not be a bar for considering with a condition that the prosecuti of trial. In the above-mentioned case ppellant who was being prosecuted ht of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. the observations made by Hon’ble . State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC t of bail on account of undue delay Section 37 of the NDPS Act, given which is applicable to offence under are overcrowded and their living palling. The danger of unjustified likely to be hardened rather than Manmandal and Another v. State inal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533, tended benefit of bail to the accused eriod by observing that prolonged ecious fundamental right guaranteed such a situation, the constitutional argo contained under Section 37 of upon Santosh Pawar Vs. State of o.4883/2025, which is a recently ourt observing that rigors of Section ering the case of an accused for bail osecution would press for an early d case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ecuted for being in possession of Act. ble CC elay iven nder iving tified than tate on 33, used nged teed ional 7 of of ently ction r bail early ourt n of AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.16 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-65794- commercial quant incarceration for a 8. Simil v. Central Bureau and inordinate del considered the cor including Section 436A (which requ not concluded wit would apply.
9. In th Crminal Appeal quantity of narcoti of bail to the accus and 08 months of t 10. Simil No.15699-2025 tit and in the case of of 2025.
11. On an case in the light o petitioner has suff months. The tria -2025 (O&M) 4 quantity of narcotic substance, was e n for a period of 19 months.
Similarly in another case i.e. in the c reau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SC te delay engaged the attention of the H he correct approach towards bail, with ection 37 NDPS Act. The court expre h requires inter alia the accused to be ed within specified periods) of the Cr In the case of Ismail Khan @ Pa eal No.4911 of 2025 with regard narcotic substance, the Hon’ble Supre e accused in view of prolonged incarce ths of the accused.
Similar benefit has been extended 25 titled as Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK ase of Pamesh Arora vs. UT Chandig On analyzing the peculiar facts and light of the aforementioned principle as suffered prolonged incarceration fo he trial is not likely to be conclude was entitled for bail in view of her n the case of Satender Kumar Antil 0 SCC 51 prolonged incarceration f the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which l, with respect to several enactments, t expressed the opinion that Section to be enlarged on bail if the trial is the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan regard to recovery of commercial Supreme Court accorded the benefit incarceration for a period of 02 years ended in another appeal i.e. SLP SK vs. The State of West Bengal ndigarh Criminal Appeal No.4872 ts and circumstances of the present nciples of law, it transpires that the tion for a period of 02 years and 10 ncluded in near future as only 03 f her ntil ation hich ents, ction ial is 1973 an rcial nefit years LP gal 72 esent t the 0 y 03 AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.16 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-65794- prosecution witne antecedents. The fruitful purpose. T petitioner will not 12. In vie case is made out f petition is allowed his furnishing pers trial Court/Chief J 13. In the petitioner, it shall application seekin 14. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 15. Since any, is rendered in 16.02.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 5 witnesses have been examined so fa The continued detention of the petiti ose. There is nothing on record to sho ill not participate in the trial or will ab In view of the above discussion, this e out for grant of bail to the petitioner llowed and the petitioner is ordered to g personal as well as surety bonds to hief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistr In the event of there being any FIR t shall be open to the respondent-State seeking cancellation of bail. It is, however, clarified that the obse d as an expression of opinion of this C t influence the outcome of the trial in a Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes
   d so far. The petitioner’s has clean e petitioner is not likely to serve any to show that if released on bail, the ill abscond. n, this Court is of the opinion that a itioner at this stage. Accordingly, the ered to be released on bail subject to nds to the satisfaction of the learned agistrate concerned. y FIR/complaint lodged against the State to seek redressal by filing an e observations made above shall not this Court on the merits of the case ial in any manner.
allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
clean any l, the hat a , the ct to rned t the g an l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.16 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.