CRM-M-1323-20 IN THE H GOLDI @ GOLD STATE OF PUNJ 1 The dat 2 The dat 3 The dat website 4 Whethe pronoun pronoun 5 The del judgme CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Mr. R **** MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 483 of Bh for grant of regul registered under S 1985 (for short “N 2. As pe conscious possess HCL. The previo 2026 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH GOLDI PALIWAL Versus PUNJAB he date when the judgment is reserved he date when the judgment is pronoun he date when the judgment is uploaded ebsite hether only operative part of the judg ronounced or whether the full judgmen ronounced he delay, if any, of the pronouncement dgment and reasons thereof. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate for Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab **** BATRA, J. The instant one is the sixth petition of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh regular bail in case arising out of F nder Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and ort “NDPS Act”) at Police Station City As per the allegations on 19.10.2022 ossession of 34,000 intoxicant tablets previous petitions as filed by the pet JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-1323-2026 (O&M) ... Petitioner ...Respondent served 05.05.2026 onounced 08.05.2026 loaded on the 08.05.2026 e judgment is dgment is Full cement of full Not applicable ANISHA BATRA ate for the petitioner Punjab for respondent etition filed by the petitioner under Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) ut of FIR No.248 dated 19.10.2022 gs and Psychotropic Substances Act, on City Rajpura, District Patiala. 0.2022, the petitioner was found in tablets of Alprazolam and Tramadol he petitioner had been dismissed on oner dent nder SS”) 2022 , d in adol d on AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.08 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-1323-20 different dates. observing that o examined. 3. The m that even after dis days has elapsed prosecution witne incarceration for a incarceration mil guaranteed under clean. Each day move bail afresh f petition deserves t 4. Per c successive petition circumstances and therefore, urged th 5. This C for the parties at co 6. Undis petitions as filed others petitions w than 08 months, t 2026 (O&M) 2 tes. The last petition had been hat out of 13 only 03 prosecution The main thrust of argument of learn ter dismissal of his previous petition, lapsed, however, there has been no witnesses still remain to be examin n for a period of 03 years, 06 months n militates against his fundamenta under Article 21 of the Constitution h day spent by him in custody has fu fresh for seeking concession of bail. erves to be allowed. Per contra, learned State counsel h etition without there being any subst es and hence, the petition does not rged that the petition is liable to be dism This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. Undisputedly this is the sixth petition filed by the petitioner had been dism ons were dismissed on different dates nths, the trial has not proceeded furth been dismissed on 23.09.2025 by ecution witnesses remained to be f learned counsel for the petitioner is tition, a period of 08 months and 15 en no progress in the trial as 03 xamined. He has already suffered onths and 15 days. His prolonged mental rights of personal liberty ution of India. His antecedents are has furnished him a new ground to bail. It is, therefore, urged that the nsel has argued that this one is a substantial or drastic change in the s not deserve to be allowed. It is, be dismissed. ubmissions made by learned counsel etition for grant of regular bail. Two ismissed as withdrawn, whereas t dates. However, for the last more d further at all as 03 witnesses still 5 by o be er is d 15 3 fered nged berty s are d to t the is a n the It is, unsel Two ereas more still AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.08 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-1323-20 remain to be exam 03 years, 06 mont facie make out a c So far as the ques concerned, it may bail application f entertaining such a which persuade it application is mad spent by an accus application under indefinite period a repeatedly. The d press for early com petitioner. He ha settled proposition period of incarcera Act. Reliance in Hon’ble Apex Co 2023 SCC OnLin undue delay in tria Act, given the im offence under the living conditions a 2026 (O&M) 3 e examined. The petitioner has alread months and 15 days in custody. The out a case for commission of the subj e question of maintainability of this p it may be mentioned that, an accused h tion for grant of bail and it is th such a subsequent bail application, to ade it to take a view different from is made out or not. It is also require accused in custody provides a new c under certain circumstances. He ca eriod and the bail application can be The denial of bail comes with a cond rly completion of the trial. No recove He has clean antecedents. He is in c osition of law that grant of bail on acc carceration is to be considered in the li ce in this regard can be placed upo x Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Huss Line SC 352, wherein it was held t in trial cannot be said to be fettered u the imperative of Section 436-A of C er the Act. It was also observed that j itions are, more often than not, appall already spent a period of more than The allegations against him prima e subject offences by the petitioner. this petition being successive one is cused has a right to move successive t is the duty of the Court, while ion, to consider that any fresh ground t from the one taken in the earlier required to be noted that every day new cause of action for filing a bail He cannot be kept in custody for an be considered even if it is filed condition that the prosecution must recovery has been effected from the is in custody since long. It is well on account of delay in trial and long the light of Section 37 of the NDPS ed upon the observations made by Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), held that grant of bail on account of ttered under Section 37 of the NDPS A of Cr.P.C. which is applicable to that jails are overcrowded and their appalling. The danger of unjustified than ma oner. ne is ssive hile ound arlier day bail for filed must the well long DPS e by hi), nt of DPS le to their tified AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.08 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-1323-20 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 commercial quant incarceration for a 8. Simil v. Central Bureau and inordinate del considered the cor including Section 2026 (O&M) 4 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 lant who was being prosecuted 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 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 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 than tate on 33, used nged teed ional 7 of of ently ction r bail early ourt n of f her ntil ation hich ents, ction AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.08 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-1323-20 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. Even Apex Court in Sp Rajadurai vs. Th extended benefit quantity of ganja 12. On an case in the light o petitioner has suf months and 27 da only 01 out of 1 continued detentio 2026 (O&M) 5 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 Even in a recent order dated 05.05 Special Leave to Appeal (Crimin . The State of Tamil Nadu, the enefit of bail to an accused involve nja after a period of one year on acco On analyzing the peculiar facts and light of the aforementioned principle as suffered prolonged incarceration 27 days. The trial is not likely to b t of 13 prosecution witnesses have etention of the petitioner is not likely 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 05.05.2026 passed by the Hon’ble riminal) No.4729 of 2026 titled as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has volved in recovery of commercial on account of his prolonged custody. ts and circumstances of the present nciples of law, it transpires that the ration for a period of 01 year, 11 ly to be concluded in near future as have been examined so far. The likely to serve any fruitful purpose. ial is 1973 an rcial nefit years LP gal 72 ble ed as has rcial esent t the r, 11 re as The pose. AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.08 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-1323-20 There is nothing o participate in the t 13. In vie case is made out f petition is allowed his furnishing pers trial Court/Chief J 14. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 15. Since any, is rendered in 08.05.2026 Amit Sharma 2026 (O&M) 6 hing on record to show that if released n the trial or will abscond. 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 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. (MAN Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes Whether reportable:- Yes/No leased on bail, the petitioner will not 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. e observations made above shall not is Court on the merits of the case ial in any manner.
allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No ll not hat a , the ct to rned l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.08 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.