CRM-M-13243- IN THE H (209) VIKRAM SINGH STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. S MANISHA BATR 1. The under Section 48 “BNSS”) for gran 18.04.2017 registe Substances Act Ludhiana. The withdrawn vide or 2. The a 18.04.2017, the pe the basis of susp (diphenoxylate hy They were formall -2026 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH INGH @ BIKRAM SINGH @ VIC Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Pakka, Advocate Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab **** BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant one is the second petitio on 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surak r grant of regular bail in case aris registered under Section 22 of Narc (for short “NDPS Act”) at Po The previous petition as filed by ide order dated 29.10.2025. The aforementioned FIR was registe the petitioner and co-accused Jagdish f suspicion and recovery of 160 g ate hydrochloride) was effected from ormally arrested. Investigation now st JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-13243-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 19.05.2026 VICKY ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA vocate for the petitioner petition preferred by the petitioner Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short e arising out of FIR No.35 dated Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic at Police Station Sudhar, District d by him had been dismissed as registered on the allegations that on Jagdish Singh were apprehended on 160 grams of intoxicating power d from their conscious possession. now stands concluded. M) 2026 oner dent ioner short ated ropic strict d as at on on ower sion. AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.19 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-13243- 3. It is a falsely implicated had been extende since 25.10.2024. purpose would be incarceration milit broad submissions petition deserves t 4. Per c report has submit petition. The rigo recovery being co and there is nothin of the same. It is allowed. 5. This C for the parties at co 6. So fa successive one is c move successive b while entertaining ground which per earlier application -2026 (O&M) 2 It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case. A false recovery h xtended benefit of interim bail previo .2024. The trial will take considerable uld be served by detaining him in cus n militates against his fundamental rig issions, it is urged that he deserves t erves to be allowed. Per contra, learned State counsel w submitted that this petition is not m e rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Ac ing commercial in nature. The trial i nothing to show that there would be a It is, therefore, argued that the pe This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. So far as the question of maintain ne is concerned, it may be mentioned ssive bail application for grant of bail aining such a subsequent bail applicat ch persuade it to take a view differe cation is made out or not. It is also r l for the petitioner that he has been very has been planted upon him. He previously. Now he is in custody derable time to conclude. No useful in custody anymore. His prolonged tal right to speedy trial. With these rves to be released on bail and the nsel while relying upon the status not maintainable being the second PS Act are attracted in this case, the trial is proceeding at a proper pace ld be any undue delay in conclusion the petition does not deserves to be ubmissions made by learned counsel aintainability of this petition being tioned that, an accused has a right to f bail and it is the duty of the Court, pplication, to consider that any fresh different from the one taken in the also required to be noted that every been . He tody seful nged these d the tatus cond , the pace sion to be unsel eing ht to ourt, fresh the very AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.19 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-13243- day spent by an a bail application un indefinite period a repeatedly. The d press for early co 25.10.2024. The prosecution witnes of law that grant 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 -2026 (O&M) 3 y an accused in custody provides a ne tion under certain circumstances. He eriod and the bail application can be The denial of bail comes with a cond arly completion of the trial. The p The trial will take considerable t witnesses have been examined so far grant of bail on account of delay n 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 es a new cause of action for filing a He cannot be kept in custody for an be considered even if it is filed condition that the prosecution must The petitioner is in custody since able time to conclude as only 04 so far. It is well settled proposition delay in trial and long period of ht of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. the observations made by Hon’ble . State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC ant 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, ed benefit of bail to the accused eriod by observing that prolonged ecious fundamental right guaranteed such a situation, the constitutional ing a y for filed must since y 04 ition d of Act. ble CC elay iven nder iving tified than tate on 33, used nged teed ional AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.19 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-13243- 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 436A (which requ not concluded wit would apply.
9. In th Crminal Appeal quantity of narcoti -2026 (O&M) 4 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 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 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 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 7 of of ently ction r bail early ourt n of f her ntil ation hich ents, ction ial is 1973 an rcial nefit AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.19 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-13243- 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 suf months and 23 da only 04 out of 1 continued detentio There is nothing o participate in the t 12. In vie case is made out f petition is allowed his furnishing pers trial Court/Chief J 13. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ -2026 (O&M) 5 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 23 days. The trial is not likely to b t of 10 prosecution witnesses have etention of the petitioner is not likely 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 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 ration for a period of 01 year, 07 ly to be concluded in near future as have been examined so far. The likely to serve any fruitful purpose. leased on bail, the petitioner will not n, this Court is of the opinion that a ioner 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 this Court on the merits of the case ial in any manner. years LP gal 72 esent t the r, 07 re as The pose. ll not hat a , the ct to rned l not case AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.19 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-13243- 14. Since any, is rendered in 19.05.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 6 Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes Whether reportable:- Yes/No allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.19 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.