CRM-M-56877- IN THE H (124) SARWAN SINGH STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. R MANISHA BATR 1. The under Section 48 “BNSS”) for gran 05.08.2019 registe Substances Act (f District Kapurthal dismissed by this C 2. As p apprehended by P Alprazolam was e -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH SINGH Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Angrej Singh, Advocate for the p Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Pu **** BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant one is the second petitio on 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surak r grant of regular bail in case arisi registered under Section 22 of the Na Act (for short “NDPS”) at Police S urthala. His previous petition bearin y this Court on 24.01.2025. As per the allegations, on 05.0 d by Police party and recovery of 255 was effected from him. He was ex JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-56877-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 19.03.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA r the petitioner G, Punjab petition preferred by the petitioner Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short e arising out of FIR No.177 dated Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic lice Station City Sultanpur Lodhi, bearing CRM-M No.2645-2025 was 05.08.2019, the petitioner was f 255 grams of intoxicant power i.e. as extended benefit of interim bail M) 2026 oner dent ioner short ated ropic odhi, was was r i.e. bail AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.20 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-56877- vide order dated 0 report, notices we His bail was cance were initiated and 07.10.2022 and is 3. It is a falsely implicated is in custody since time. No useful p spent by him in c prolonged incarce under Article 21 o cannot be conside therefore, argued t 4. Per c petition being a su dismissed by this C is further argued absconder and com and the rigors of S does not deserve to 5. This C for the parties at co -2025 (O&M) 2 ated 07.11.2019, awaiting the FSL re es were issued to him. He did not a s cancelled. Proceedings for declaring ed and he was declared as such on 28 is in custody since then. Investiga It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case. A false recovery ha y since long. The trial has not conclud eful purpose would be served by his fu m in custody gives a new ground to incarceration militates against his fu le 21 of the Constitution of India. H onsidered to be a reason for denying gued that he deserves to be released on Per contra, learned State counsel ng a successive one is not maintainab y this Court by passing a detailed orde rgued that keeping in view the fac nd commercial quantity of contraband rs of Section 37 of the NDPS are attra erve to be released on bail. This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. L report. After receipt of the FSL d not appear before the Trial Court. claring him as a proclaimed offender on 28.09.2022. He was arrested on estigation now stands completed. l for the petitioner that he has been very has been effected from him. He oncluded so far and is likely to take y his further incarceration. Each day nd to seek concession of bail. His his fundamental rights guaranteed ia. His involvement in other cases nying benefit of bail to him. It is, ased on bail. unsel has argued that the present tainable. His previous petition was d order. He is a habitual offender. It he fact that the petitioner was an raband had been recovered from him e attracted in this case, the petitioner ubmissions made by learned counsel FSL ourt. nder d on been . He take day His teed cases It is, esent was r. It s an him ioner unsel AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.20 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-56877- 6. It wil by the responden evidence in the Tr deponent of the Superintendent of been called, who inadvertent mistak been cautioned to 7. The p commercial quant years and 08 mon bleak. It is well- grant of bail, has t facie case or reaso offence, circumsta offence being repe punishment in the fleeing if released threatened, etc. Ho relevant factor to b an accused charge catena of cases tha of time, and the b filed repeatedly. -2025 (O&M) 3 It will be relevant to mention here th ondent it was mentioned that the ca he Trial Court. However, since this f the status report filed by way ent of Police, Sub Division Sultanpur , who has apologized and submitte mistake and the prosecution witnesses ed to be vigilant in future. The petitioner is alleged to be foun quantity of contraband. He is in cu 8 months. The chances of conclusion -settled law that the Court, while l, has to keep certain factors in mind su r reasonable ground to believe that th cumstances which are peculiar to th g repeated, the nature and gravity of in the event of conviction, the danger leased on bail, and reasonable appreh etc. However, at the same time, the pe tor to be considered while deciding wh charged with an offence. The Hon’ble ses that an accused cannot be kept in c the bail application can be considered edly. It has also been held that eve here that in the status report as filed the case is at the stage of defence e this fact appeared to be wrong, the way of affidavit i.e. Assistant anpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala had mitted that it was due to some nesses are yet to be examined. He hs e found in conscious possession of in custody for over a period of 03 lusion of trial in the near future are while considering an application for ind such as whether there is a prima that the accused has committed the r to the accused, likelihood of the ity of the accusation, severity of the danger of the accused absconding or apprehension of the witnesses being the period of incarceration is also a ing whether bail should be granted to on’ble Apex Court has observed in a pt in custody for an indefinite period sidered on its own merits even if it is at every day spent in custody can filed ence , the stant had some s n of f 03 e are n for rima d the f the f the g or eing lso a ed to in a eriod f it is can AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.20 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-56877- provide a new c circumstances. Th law prefers bail o requirements of th that grant of bail o to be considered i regard can be pla Mohd. Muslim @ wherein it was he be said to be fetter Section 436-A of also observed th often than not, app are more likely to upon Manmandal (Criminal) No.865 of Odisha, 2023 L extended benefit o period by observ precious fundamen in such a situatio embargo contained 8. Relia Chhattishgarh & -2025 (O&M) 4 new cause of action for filing a b es. This principle is a part of the broad bail over jail, aiming to balance the s of the criminal justice system. It is w f bail on account of delay in trial and ered in the light of Section 37 of th be placed upon the observations mad m @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delh as held that grant of bail on account e fettered under Section 37 of the NDP A of Cr.P.C. which is applicable to ed that jails are overcrowded and the ot, appalling. The danger of unjustified ely to be hardened rather than reforme ndal and Another v. State of West B o.8656 of 2023 decided on 14.09.20 023 LiveLaw (SC) 533, wherein the nefit of bail to the accused who had bserving that prolonged incarceratio damental right guaranteed under Arti ituation, the constitutional principles ntained under Section 37 of the NDPS Reliance can also be placed upon h & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.48 g a bail application under certain e broader approach emphasizing that e the rights of the accused with the . It is well settled proposition of law l and long period of incarceration is of the NDPS Act. Reliance in this s made by Hon’ble Apex Court in Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, count of undue delay in trial cannot e NDPS Act, given the imperative of ble to offence under the Act. It was nd their living conditions are, more ustified imprisonment is that inmates eformed. Reliance can also be placed est Bengal, Special Leave Petition 9.2023 and Rabi Prakash v. State ein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had o had been incarcerated for a long ceration militated against the most er Article 21 of the Constitution and nciples must override the statutory NDPS Act. upon Santosh Pawar Vs. State of o.4883/2025, which is a recently rtain that h the f law on is this in 52, nnot ve of was more ates laced ion ate t had long most and utory of ently AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.20 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-56877- pronounced verdic 37 of NDPS Act w as it comes with completion of tria held that appella commercial quant incarceration for a 9. Simil v. Central Bureau and inordinate del considered the cor including Section 436A (which requ not concluded wit would apply. 10. In th Crminal Appeal quantity of narcoti of bail to the accus and 08 months of t 11. Simil No.15699-2025 tit -2025 (O&M) 5 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 eau 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 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 incarceration for a period of 02 years ended in another appeal i.e. SLP SK vs. The State of West Bengal ction r bail early ourt n of f her ntil ation hich ents, ction ial is 1973 an rcial nefit years LP gal AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.20 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-56877- and in the case of of 2025. 12. On an case in the light o petitioner has suff and 12 days. The of 07 prosecution detention of the p accused has also deserves to be ext if released on bail, 13. In vie case is made out f petition is allowed her furnishing pers satisfaction of the concerned. 14. Howe cancellation of b subsequent case. -2025 (O&M) 6 ase of Pamesh Arora vs. UT Chandig On analyzing the peculiar facts and light of the aforementioned principle as suffered prolonged incarceration for . The trial is not likely to be conclude ecution witnesses have been exami f the petitioner is not likely to serve also been extended benefit of bai be extended benefit of bail. There is n n bail, the petitioner will not participat In view of the above discussion, this e out for grant of bail to the petitioner llowed and the petitioner is ordered to ng personal as well as surety bonds to of the learned trial Court/Chief Judici However, it will be open for th of bail in case the petitioner is f case. ndigarh Criminal Appeal No.4872 ts and circumstances of the present nciples of law, it transpires that the ion for a period 03 years, 08 months ncluded in near future as only 02 out examined so far. The continued serve any fruitful purpose. The co- f bail. Therefore, on parity too, he ere is nothing on record to show that rticipate in the trial or will abscond. n, this Court is of the opinion that a itioner at this stage. Accordingly, the ered to be released on bail subject to to the extent of 02 sureties to the Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate for the prosecution to apply for r is found involved in any other 72 esent t the nths out nued - , he that hat a , the ct to o the trate for other AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.20 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-56877- 15. It is m the purpose of dec on the merits of th 16. Since any, is rendered in 19.03.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 7 It is made clear that any observation of deciding the present petition and t s of the case. Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes Whether reportable:- Yes/No vation made herein above is only for and the same shall have no bearing een allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No y for aring n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.20 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.