Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. This is third petition for bail 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita’, 2023. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of 21(C), 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Sections 10, 11 and 12 of Aircraft Act, Police Station Khalra, District Tarn Taran. 2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from the record are that the FIR of this case came in response to an action taken on the basis of a secret information recei source gave an information that were in constant touch of Pakistani smugglers and that they were involved in the Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. This is third petition for bail filed by the 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita’, 2023. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. 45 dated 24.04.2024 under Sections 21(C), 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Sections 10, 11 and 12 of Aircraft Act, Police Station Khalra, District Tarn Briefly stating the facts emerging from the record are that the FIR of this case came in response to an action taken on the basis of a secret information received in the Police Station. According to prosecution, a reliable an information that ‘Rana Singh’ were in constant touch of Pakistani smugglers and that they were involved in the Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita’, 2023. It has been filed with 45 dated 24.04.2024 under Sections 21(C), 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Sections 10, 11 and 12 of Aircraft Act, Police Station Khalra, District Tarn Briefly stating the facts emerging from the record are that the FIR of this case came in response to an action taken on the basis of a secret ved in the Police Station. According to prosecution, a reliable and ‘Lovepreet Singh @Love’ were in constant touch of Pakistani smugglers and that they were involved in the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita’, 2023. It has been filed with 45 dated 24.04.2024 under Sections 1985 and Sections 10, 11 and 12 of Aircraft Act, Police Station Khalra, District Tarn Briefly stating the facts emerging from the record are that the FIR of this case came in response to an action taken on the basis of a secret ved in the Police Station. According to prosecution, a reliable ’ were in constant touch of Pakistani smugglers and that they were involved in the VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.04.18 09:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document activities of smuggling Heroin through it was also informed that significant drone activity was 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of abovementioned information, a raiding party was formed and when the abo reached the place spotted. According to prosecution two of them were holding a drone and one was holding a yellow the abovesaid persons when noticed the presence of police party run away but the police party was successful in apprehending one of them. As per prosecution when search of the packet being carried by the abovesaid person was conducted, it was found Kg 166 Grams of Heroin. The prosecution has further alleged that on enquiry, the abovesaid person disclosed his name as during the course of investigation Arshdeep Singh and Lovepreet Singh @Love (the petitioner herein). It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of abovementioned information the co accused ‘Arshdeep Singh 4. Custody Certificate has been filed by learned State Counsel. The same be taken on record. the learned State Counsel has orally opposed the present petition. 5. Heard. 6. It has been contended b is the third bail application of smuggling Heroin through drone from Pakistan. As per prosecution, it was also informed that significant drone activity was It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of abovementioned information, a raiding party was formed and when the abo reached the place, told by the informer, three young boys going on foot were spotted. According to prosecution two of them were holding a drone and one was holding a yellow-coloured packet. The prosecut vesaid persons when noticed the presence of police party run away but the police party was successful in apprehending one of them. As per prosecution when search of the packet being carried by the abovesaid person it was found that the abovementioned packet Kg 166 Grams of Heroin. The prosecution has further alleged that on enquiry, the abovesaid person disclosed his name as ‘Rana Singh during the course of investigation, he disclosed the name of his co Arshdeep Singh and Lovepreet Singh @Love (the petitioner herein). It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of abovementioned information the co Arshdeep Singh’ and the petitioner were arrested Custody Certificate has been filed by learned State Counsel. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State Counsel has orally opposed the present petition. Heard. has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that this is the third bail application moved by the petitioner and that from the date of drone from Pakistan. As per prosecution, it was also informed that significant drone activity was noticed near village Dall. It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of abovementioned information, a raiding party was formed and when the abovementioned party told by the informer, three young boys going on foot were spotted. According to prosecution two of them were holding a drone and one he prosecution has further alleged that vesaid persons when noticed the presence of police party, they tried to run away but the police party was successful in apprehending one of them. As per prosecution when search of the packet being carried by the abovesaid person that the abovementioned packet was containing 3 Kg 166 Grams of Heroin. The prosecution has further alleged that on enquiry, Rana Singh’ and on interrogation, he disclosed the name of his co-accused as Arshdeep Singh and Lovepreet Singh @Love (the petitioner herein). It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of abovementioned information the co- and the petitioner were arrested. Custody Certificate has been filed by learned State Counsel. The No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State Counsel has orally opposed the present petition. y learned counsel for the petitioner that this moved by the petitioner and that from the date of drone from Pakistan. As per prosecution, It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of abovementioned vementioned party told by the informer, three young boys going on foot were spotted. According to prosecution two of them were holding a drone and one that they tried to run away but the police party was successful in apprehending one of them. As per prosecution when search of the packet being carried by the abovesaid person 3 Kg 166 Grams of Heroin. The prosecution has further alleged that on enquiry, , accused as Arshdeep Singh and Lovepreet Singh @Love (the petitioner herein). It is the - Custody Certificate has been filed by learned State Counsel. The No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, y learned counsel for the petitioner that this moved by the petitioner and that from the date of VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.04.18 09:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document dismissal of second bail petition there is change in circumstance placed co-accused Arshdeep Singh @Arashdeep S accorded the benefit of bail by Co According to learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and on the ground of parity 7. The arguments. According to learned State Counsel, the recovered in the instant case, and therefore, without satisfying the rigors o benefit of bail sho 8. The record has been perused carefully. 9. As far as the principles governing the benefit of bail in a case related to NDPS Act, of commercial quantity, Supreme Court (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352 case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered under Section NDPS Act, given the imperative of Section 436 offences under the Act. 10. In this regard it is also relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bengal’, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on 14.09.2023 and ‘ dismissal of second bail petition there is change in circumstance accused Arshdeep Singh @Arashdeep S accorded the benefit of bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 17.03.2026. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and on the ground of parity also, he is entitled to bail. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, the recovered in the instant case, comes within the ambit of commercial quantity without satisfying the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act, the should not be accorded to the present petitioner. The record has been perused carefully. As far as the principles governing the benefit of bail in a case related to NDPS Act, wherein the quantity of contraband comes within the ambit of commercial quantity, are concerned, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352 are relevant. In the abovementio the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that grant of bail on account of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered under Section NDPS Act, given the imperative of Section 436 offences under the Act. In this regard it is also relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Manmandal and Another v. State of West , Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on ‘Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha dismissal of second bail petition there is change in circumstance, as the similarly accused Arshdeep Singh @Arashdeep Singh @Arash has been ordinate Bench of this Court on 17.03.2026. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner has no criminal is entitled to bail. learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, the quantity of contraband comes within the ambit of commercial quantity f Section 37 of NDPS Act, the uld not be accorded to the present petitioner. The record has been perused carefully. As far as the principles governing the benefit of bail in a case contraband comes within the ambit are concerned, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble ‘Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State’ are relevant. In the abovementioned has 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 which is applicable to In this regard it is also relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble Manmandal and Another v. State of West , Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on State of Odisha’, 2023 SCC Online SC 1109, as the similarly been ordinate Bench of this Court on 17.03.2026. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner has no criminal learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned of contraband comes within the ambit of commercial quantity f Section 37 of NDPS Act, the As far as the principles governing the benefit of bail in a case contraband comes within the ambit are concerned, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble ’ ned has held that grant of bail on account 37 of the A which is applicable to In this regard it is also relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble Manmandal and Another v. State of West , Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on , VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.04.18 09:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document extended the benefit of bail to the accused, who had been incarcerated for a period of almost 2 above-mentioned benefit has been given by observing t incarceration generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo contained under Section-37 of the NDPS Act. 11. In addition to above, in a recently pronounced verdict in the case of ‘Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr.’ Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court Section 37 of NDPS Ac for bail as it comes with a condition that the prosecution would press for an early completion of trial. In the above Court of India held that appellant who was b possession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, was entitled for bail in view of her incarceration for a period of 19 months. 12. Similarly in another case i.e. in the case of v. Central Bureau o and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Ac Court of India Procedure Code, 1973 extended the benefit of bail to the accused, who had been incarcerated for a period of almost 2-3 years and the trial was likely to take considerable time. The mentioned benefit has been given by observing t incarceration generally militates 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 37 of the NDPS Act. In addition to above, in a recently pronounced verdict in the case of Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr.’ Criminal Appeal , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that rigo 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 of India held that appellant who was b possession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, was entitled for bail in view of her incarceration for a period of 19 months. Similarly in another case i.e. in the case of v. Central Bureau of Investigation’ (2022) 10 SCC 51 and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Ac expressed the opinion that Section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on extended the benefit of bail to the accused, who had been incarcerated for a 3 years and the trial was likely to take considerable time. The mentioned benefit has been given by observing that prolonged incarceration generally militates against the most precious fundamental right 21 of the Constitution, and in such a situation, the constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo contained under In addition to above, in a recently pronounced verdict in the case of Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr.’ Criminal Appeal of India observed that rigors of t 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 mentioned case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India 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 months. Similarly in another case i.e. in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil (2022) 10 SCC 51 prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The Hon’ble Supreme expressed the opinion that Section 436A of the Criminal which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on extended the benefit of bail to the accused, who had been incarcerated for a 3 years and the trial was likely to take considerable time. The hat prolonged incarceration generally militates against the most precious fundamental right 21 of the Constitution, and in such a situation, the constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo contained under In addition to above, in a recently pronounced verdict in the case of Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr.’ Criminal Appeal rs of t 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 mentioned case the Hon’ble Supreme eing prosecuted for being in possession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, was entitled for bail in Satender Kumar Antil prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to Hon’ble Supreme expressed the opinion that Section 436A of the Criminal which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.04.18 09:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods cases. 13. In the case of Criminal Appeal No.4911 of 2025 quantity of narcotic substance the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India accorded the benefit of bail to the accused in vie 02 years and 08 months of the accused. 14. The similar benefit has been No.15699-2025 titled as and in the case of of 2025. 15. In the case of ‘Hasanujjaman & Ors. V/s The State of West Bengal’ SLP (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023, the benefit of bail has been accorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to an accused, who was of 115 bottles of phensedyl, by observing that: a) the petitioner was in custody for a period of one year and three months; b) the investigation in that case was complete and charge been filed, but charges were yet to c) the conclusion of trial would take some time; and d) the petitioner had no criminal antecedents. In view of abovementioned prevailing factors, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that there is substantial compliance Section-37 of NDPS Act. bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods In the case of ‘Ismail Khan @ Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan Criminal Appeal No.4911 of 2025 with regard to recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic substance the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India accorded the benefit of bail to the accused in view of prolonged incarceration for a period of 02 years and 08 months of the accused. The similar benefit has been given 2025 titled as ‘Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK vs. The State of West Bengal and in the case of ‘Pamesh Arora vs. UT Chandigarh In the case of ‘Hasanujjaman & Ors. V/s The State of West Bengal’ SLP (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023, the benefit of bail has been accorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to an accused, who was of 115 bottles of phensedyl, by observing that:- the petitioner was in custody for a period of one year and three months; the investigation in that case was complete and charge been filed, but charges were yet to be framed; the conclusion of trial would take some time; and the petitioner had no criminal antecedents. In view of abovementioned prevailing factors, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that there is substantial compliance 37 of NDPS Act. bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods] would apply in such Ismail Khan @ Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan’ with regard to recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic substance the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India accorded the w of prolonged incarceration for a period of given in another appeal, i.e. SLP Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK vs. The State of West Bengal’, Arora vs. UT Chandigarh’ Criminal Appeal No.4872 In the case of ‘Hasanujjaman & Ors. V/s The State of West Bengal’ SLP (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023, the benefit of bail has been accorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to an accused, who was found in the possession the petitioner was in custody for a period of one year and three the investigation in that case was complete and charge-sheet had be framed; the conclusion of trial would take some time; and the petitioner had no criminal antecedents. In view of abovementioned prevailing factors, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that there is substantial compliance of in such ’ with regard to recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic substance the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India accorded the w of prolonged incarceration for a period of SLP ’, Criminal Appeal No.4872 In the case of ‘Hasanujjaman & Ors. V/s The State of West Bengal’ SLP (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023, the benefit of bail has been accorded by the found in the possession the petitioner was in custody for a period of one year and three sheet had In view of abovementioned prevailing factors, it has been observed of VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.04.18 09:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 16. Similarly, in the case of ‘Nandlal Mondal @Abhay Mondal V/s The State of West Bengal’ SLP(Crl) No.12788/2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India afforded the benefit of bail to the accused, who was found in possession of 10 of one and a half year, by considering that conclusion of trial would take long time. 17. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed in the light of above first iii) that the in this case months and fourteen days; iv) that the petitioner has clean antecedents; Similarly, in the case of ‘Nandlal Mondal @Abhay Mondal V/s The State of West Bengal’ SLP(Crl) No.12788/2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India afforded the benefit of bail to the accused, who was found in possession of 10,000 ml of codeine phosphate, and was in custody for a period of one and a half year, by considering that conclusion of trial would take long If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed in the light of above-mentioned principles of law, it transpires that: Arshdeep Singh @Arashdeep Singh @Arash first bail petition was dismissed; that the petitioner has already served a in this case, i.e. for a period of more than one year eleven months and fourteen days; that the petitioner has clean antecedents; Similarly, in the case of ‘Nandlal Mondal @Abhay Mondal V/s The State of West Bengal’ SLP(Crl) No.12788/2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India afforded the benefit of bail to the accused, who was found in ,000 ml of codeine phosphate, and was in custody for a period of one and a half year, by considering that conclusion of trial would take long If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed in ples of law, it transpires that:- Arshdeep Singh @Arashdeep Singh @Arash, whose petitioner has already served a prolonged incarceration for a period of more than one year eleven that the petitioner has clean antecedents; Similarly, in the case of ‘Nandlal Mondal @Abhay Mondal V/s The State of West Bengal’ SLP(Crl) No.12788/2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India afforded the benefit of bail to the accused, who was found in ,000 ml of codeine phosphate, and was in custody for a period of one and a half year, by considering that conclusion of trial would take long If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed in whose prolonged incarceration for a period of more than one year eleven VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.04.18 09:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 18. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, observed that “ presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regar specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerat good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discre number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts a of a case”. 19. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘ In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble of India in the case of “Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regar specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and erson in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts a The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh are relevant, wherein it has been postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and erson in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and ed and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case tion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh are relevant, wherein it has been postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law d to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and erson in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and ed and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case tion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail nd in the circumstances The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.04.18 09:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document and Another’, ( abovementioned case, it has been observed that “ criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possib acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice 20. Recently, in the case of ‘ Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322 has observed that “ to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitutio infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently 21. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble and Another’, (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case. In the ementioned case, it has been observed that “ criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Cou has observed that “if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitutio infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, h is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently”. o elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and ental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble are also relevant in this case. In the ementioned case, it has been observed that “the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature le adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice”. Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, h is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that o elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and ental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble are also relevant in this case. In the the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature le adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of rt of India if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said n has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, h is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that o elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and ental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.04.18 09:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Apex court in “ SCC Online SC 4354 22. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled f to be allowed. 23. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby be released on bail on furn satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession shall be subject to following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or pr facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority. (ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 17.04.2026 Vinod “Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the sfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession subject to following conditions:- that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority. that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable inder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the or the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the . The petitioner is hereby ordered to ishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the sfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any omise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No inder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the or the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the . The petitioner is hereby ordered to ishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the sfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any omise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the and shall notify the change in that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.04.18 09:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document