CRM-M-36024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (225) DEEPAK @ TINU STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. The 483 of Bharatiya grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. registered under Sections Psychotropic Substances Act Behrampur, District Gurdaspur. 2. The 10.01.2021, the accused Gurpreet Singh, Ashish Kumar, Joginder Singh, and Sandeep Singh were found in conscious possession of 500 grams of heroin, which was taken into possession by the police. On interrogation, they suffered disclosure statements, on the basis of which the petitioner was nominated as an accused. Offence under Section 29 of the 36024-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision DEEPAK @ TINU Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Hitesh Chopra, Advocate and Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been filed Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. registered under Sections 21(C) and 29 of the Psychotropic Substances Act (for short “NDPS Act Behrampur, District Gurdaspur. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the allegations that on 10.01.2021, the accused Gurpreet Singh, Ashish Kumar, Joginder Singh, and Sandeep Singh were found in conscious possession of 500 grams of heroin, which was taken into possession by the police. On interrogation, they suffered disclosure statements, on the basis of which the petitioner was nominated as an accused. Offence under Section 29 of the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36024-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 02.09.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA and for the petitioner Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab has been filed by the petitioner under Section Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.02 dated 10.01.2021 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and NDPS Act”) at Police Station aforementioned FIR was registered on the allegations that on 10.01.2021, the accused Gurpreet Singh, Ashish Kumar, Joginder Singh, and Sandeep Singh were found in conscious possession of 500 grams of heroin, which was taken into possession by the police. They were formally arrested. They were formally arrested. On interrogation, they suffered disclosure statements, on the basis of which the petitioner was nominated as an accused. Offence under Section 29 of the Section for 10.01.2021 cotic Drugs and ”) at Police Station aforementioned FIR was registered on the allegations that on 10.01.2021, the accused Gurpreet Singh, Ashish Kumar, Joginder Singh, and Sandeep Singh were found in conscious possession of 500 grams of heroin, They were formally arrested. On interrogation, they suffered disclosure statements, on the basis of which the petitioner was nominated as an accused. Offence under Section 29 of the AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.03 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-36024 NDPS Act was added. The petitioner was arrested on 15.01.2021. Investigation now stands completed. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of co accused, which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He is in custody since long. The chances of conclusion of trial in near future are bleak as only one out of 14 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is therefore argued that the petition de 4. Per contra against the petitioner are serious in nature as he was operating a network of supply of contraband. His antecedents are not clean since as many as 57 other cases have been registered against him. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences argued that he does not deserve to be released on bail. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions mad counsel for the parties at considerable length. 6. The petitioner is alleged to have supplied commercial quantity of contraband to the co nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of the co veracity of such statements has to be tested during trial. 36024-2026 (O&M) 2 NDPS Act was added. The petitioner was arrested on 15.01.2021. ion now stands completed. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of co accused, which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He custody since long. The chances of conclusion of trial in near future are bleak as only one out of 14 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is therefore argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as he was operating a network of supply of contraband. His antecedents are not clean since as many as 57 other have been registered against him. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is argued that he does not deserve to be released on bail. This Court has heard the rival submissions mad counsel for the parties at considerable length. The petitioner is alleged to have supplied commercial quantity of contraband to the co-accused. He was not named in the FIR and was nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of the co veracity of such statements has to be tested during trial. NDPS Act was added. The petitioner was arrested on 15.01.2021. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of co- accused, which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He custody since long. The chances of conclusion of trial in near future are bleak as only one out of 14 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is therefore serves to be allowed. , learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as he was operating a network of supply of contraband. His antecedents are not clean since as many as 57 other have been registered against him. There are chances of his absconding if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that he does not deserve to be released on bail. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned The petitioner is alleged to have supplied commercial quantity of accused. He was not named in the FIR and was nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused. The veracity of such statements has to be tested during trial. His prolonged NDPS Act was added. The petitioner was arrested on 15.01.2021. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been - accused, which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He custody since long. The chances of conclusion of trial in near future are bleak as only one out of 14 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is therefore , learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as he was operating a network of supply of contraband. His antecedents are not clean since as many as 57 other have been registered against him. There are chances of his absconding , e by learned The petitioner is alleged to have supplied commercial quantity of accused. He was not named in the FIR and was The His prolonged AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.03 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-36024 incarceration militates against his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. trial in the present ca same in near future since, as per the status report, has been examined and up. On account of his involvement in other cases, he cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period. deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not in consonance with the right guaranteed by India. In Javed another 2024(9) SCC 813, howsoever, serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial. Bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. It was also observed that if the State or any prosecuting agency including the Court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 2 or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed, is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. It is also well object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial and the proper test to be applied is in the solution of the question is whether the bail should be granted or refused or whether it is probable that the party will appear to take its trial and it is indisputable that bail is not to be withheld as a 36024-2026 (O&M) 3 incarceration militates against his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. There is prolonged pendency of the trial in the present case and there is no likelihood of the conclusion of the same in near future since, as per the status report, has been examined and 02 out of 14 prosecution witnesses have been given On account of his involvement in other cases, he cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period. The well-settled proposition of law is that deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not in consonance with the right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs The State of Maharashtra and r 2024(9) SCC 813, the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial. to be withheld as a punishment. It was also observed that if the State or any prosecuting agency including the Court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed, is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. It is also well object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial and the proper test to be applied is in the solution of the question is whether the bail should be granted or refused or whether it is probable that the party will r to take its trial and it is indisputable that bail is not to be withheld as a incarceration militates against his fundamental rights guaranteed under There is prolonged pendency of the se and there is no likelihood of the conclusion of the same in near future since, as per the status report, only 01 prosecution witness out of 14 prosecution witnesses have been given On account of his involvement in other cases, he cannot be kept in settled proposition of law is that deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not in Article 21 of the Constitution of Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs The State of Maharashtra and the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial. to be withheld as a punishment. It was also observed that if the State or any prosecuting agency including the Court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have 1 of the Constitution, then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed, is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. It is also well-settled that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial and the proper test to be applied is in the solution of the question is whether the bail should be granted or refused or whether it is probable that the party will r to take its trial and it is indisputable that bail is not to be withheld as a incarceration militates against his fundamental rights guaranteed under There is prolonged pendency of the se and there is no likelihood of the conclusion of the prosecution witness out of 14 prosecution witnesses have been given On account of his involvement in other cases, he cannot be kept in settled proposition of law is that deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not in Article 21 of the Constitution of Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs The State of Maharashtra and the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial. to be withheld as a punishment. It was also observed that if the State or any prosecuting agency including the Court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have 1 of the Constitution, then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed, is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution ettled that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial and the proper test to be applied is in the solution of the question is whether the bail should be granted or refused or whether it is probable that the party will r to take its trial and it is indisputable that bail is not to be withheld as a AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.03 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-36024 punishment. Reference in this regard can also be made to Sibba v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 7. It is well settled proposition of law that grant of ba of delay in trial and long period of incarceration is to be considered in the light of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the observations made by Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, held that grant of bail on account of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, given the imperative of Section 436-A of Cr.P observed that jails are overcrowded and their living conditions are, more often than not, appalling. The danger of unjustified imprisonment is that inmates are more likely to be hardened rather placed upon Manmandal and Another v. State of West Bengal, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on 14.09.2023 and Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533, Supreme Court had extended benefit of bail to the accused who had been incarcerated for a long period by observing that prolonged incarceration militated against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situa principles must override the statutory embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 36024-2026 (O&M) 4 punishment. Reference in this regard can also be made to Sibba v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565. It is well settled proposition of law that grant of ba of delay in trial and long period of incarceration is to be considered in the light of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, held that grant of bail on account of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, given the imperative of Section A of Cr.P.C. which is applicable to offence under the Act. It was also observed that jails are overcrowded and their living conditions are, more often than not, appalling. The danger of unjustified imprisonment is that inmates are more likely to be hardened rather than reformed. Reliance can also be Manmandal and Another v. State of West Bengal, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on 14.09.2023 and Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533, ourt had extended benefit of bail to the accused who had been incarcerated for a long period by observing that prolonged incarceration militated against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situa principles must override the statutory embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. punishment. Reference in this regard can also be made to Gurbaksh Singh It is well settled proposition of law that grant of bail on account of delay in trial and long period of incarceration is to be considered in the light of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reliance in this regard can be placed Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, wherein it was held that grant of bail on account of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, given the imperative of Section .C. which is applicable to offence under the Act. It was also observed that jails are overcrowded and their living conditions are, more often than not, appalling. The danger of unjustified imprisonment is that inmates than reformed. Reliance can also be Manmandal and Another v. State of West Bengal, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on 14.09.2023 and Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533, wherein the Hon’ble ourt had extended benefit of bail to the accused who had been incarcerated for a long period by observing that prolonged incarceration militated against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo contained under Section 37 of Gurbaksh Singh il on account of delay in trial and long period of incarceration is to be considered in the light of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reliance in this regard can be placed Mohd. Muslim @ wherein it was held that grant of bail on account of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, given the imperative of Section .C. which is applicable to offence under the Act. It was also observed that jails are overcrowded and their living conditions are, more often than not, appalling. The danger of unjustified imprisonment is that inmates than reformed. Reliance can also be Manmandal and Another v. State of West Bengal, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on 14.09.2023 and Rabi wherein the Hon’ble ourt had extended benefit of bail to the accused who had been incarcerated for a long period by observing that prolonged incarceration militated against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under tion, the constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo contained under Section 37 of AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.03 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-36024 8 Reliance can also be placed upon Chhattishgarh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025, Supreme Court observed that rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act will not be a bar for considering the case of an accused for bail as it comes with a condition that the prosecution would press for an early completion of trial. In the above mentioned case, the Hon’ble S being prosecuted for being in possession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, was entitled for bail in view of her incarceration for a period of 19 months. 9. So far as the question of prolonged incarcerat delay in conclusion of the trial is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 had observed that the provisions contained in Section 436A of Cr.P.C. which requires inter alia conclude within specified period, would apply to in the absence of any specific provisions. incarceration of a period of more than fi nothing on record to show that delay in any manner is attributable to him. Taking into consideration the period spent by the petitioner in custody, the fact that trial is not circumstance peculiar to this case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be 36024-2026 (O&M) 5 Reliance can also be placed upon Chhattishgarh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025, ourt observed that rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act will not be a bar for considering the case of an accused for bail as it comes with a condition that the prosecution would press for an early completion of trial. In the above mentioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that appellant who was being prosecuted for being in possession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, was entitled for bail in view of her incarceration for a period of 19 So far as the question of prolonged incarcerat delay in conclusion of the trial is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 had observed that the provisions contained in Section 436A of Cr.P.C. which ter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not conclude within specified period, would apply to in the absence of any specific provisions. incarceration of a period of more than five years and five months. nothing on record to show that delay in any manner is attributable to him. Taking into consideration the period spent by the petitioner in custody, the fact that trial is not likely to be conclude shortly circumstance peculiar to this case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as Reliance can also be placed upon Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025, where Hon’ble ourt observed that rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act will not be a bar for considering the case of an accused for bail as it comes with a condition that the prosecution would press for an early completion of trial. In the above- upreme Court held that appellant who was being prosecuted for being in possession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, was entitled for bail in view of her incarceration for a period of 19 So far as the question of prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 had observed that the provisions contained in Section 436A of Cr.P.C. which the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not conclude within specified period, would apply to under-trial prisoners as well in the absence of any specific provisions. The petitioner has suffered ve years and five months. There is nothing on record to show that delay in any manner is attributable to him. Taking into consideration the period spent by the petitioner in custody, the likely to be conclude shortly and the facts and circumstance peculiar to this case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as Santosh Pawar Vs. State of ble ourt observed that rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act will not be a bar for considering the case of an accused for bail as it comes with a condition - upreme Court held that appellant who was being prosecuted for being in possession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, was entitled for bail in view of her incarceration for a period of 19 ion and inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 had observed that the provisions contained in Section 436A of Cr.P.C. which the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not trial prisoners as well The petitioner has suffered There is nothing on record to show that delay in any manner is attributable to him. Taking into consideration the period spent by the petitioner in custody, the and the facts and circumstance peculiar to this case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.03 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-36024 surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned 10. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 11. Since the main petition has been any, is rendered infructuous. 02.09.2026 Amit Sharma 36024-2026 (O&M) 6 surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Whether reportable:- Yes/No surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE - Yes/No surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no pending application, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.03 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.