CRM-M-63631- IN THE H (239) RAVINDER SIN STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. S MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 483 of Bh for grant of regul registered under S Substances Act, 1 District Tarn Tar withdrawn vide or 2. The 13.07.2023, a Poli when one youth w party, he was perp pocket of his low conducting search by him, which wa -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH R SINGH @ RAJA Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the pet Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant one is the third petition of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh regular bail in case arising out of F nder Sections 21(c) and 29 of Narc Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS”) at Po rn Taran. His previous two petitio ide order dated 15.07.2024 and 28.04. The aforementioned FIR was registe a Police party was patrolling in the ar outh was found moving on the main perplexed and threw a plastic bag, af is lower. On the basis of suspicio search, 280 grams of heroin was found ich was taken into custody. The said JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-63631-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 03.02.2026 ... Petitioner
...Respondent
ANISHA BATRA
the petitioner etition filed by the petitioner under a Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) t of FIR No.0292 dated 13.07.2023 f Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic at Police Station Goindwal Sahib, petitions have been dismissed as 28.04.2025 passed by this Court. registered on the allegations that on the area of Chohla Maur, Fatehabad e main road. On seeing the Police bag, after taking it out from the right spicion, he was apprehended. On found kept in the plastic bag thrown he said youth disclosed his name as M) 2026 nder ) 2023 ropic ahib, d as at on abad olice ht On rown e as AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.04 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-63631- Gulab Singh. H disclosure statem supplied to him by He was in custody case on 01.09.202 crime. Investigati accused is facing t 3. It is a falsely implicated accused which can has been effected attracted qua him. involvement in ot benefit of bail to h progress in the sa thus, argued that th 4. Status counsel has argued leveled against t application, the pe 5. This both the parties. -2025 (O&M) 2 h. He was formally arrested. On statement to the effect that the rec him by the present petitioner. The peti ustody in some other case and was jo 09.2023. On interrogation, he too ad stigation now stands completed and th acing trial for commission of aforemen It is argued by learned counsel for t licated in this case on the basis of di ich cannot be considered to be admiss fected from him. The rigors of Sect a him. He is on bail in other cases a t in other cases cannot be considere ail to him. The trial will take time to the same from the date of dismissal o that the petitioner deserve to be releas Status report and custody certificate h argued that taking into consideration t inst the petitioner and the fact th the petitioner does not deserve to relea This Court has heard the rival subm . On interrogation, he suffered a he recovered contraband had been he petitioner was nominated as such. was joined into investigation of this too admitted his involvement in the and the petitioner alongwith the co- rementioned offences. l for the petitioner that he has been s of disclosure statement of the co- dmissible in evidence. No recovery f Section 37 of NDPS Act are not ases as registered against him. His sidered to be a reason for denying ime to conclude as there is no much issal of his previous petition. It is, released on bail. icate have been filed. Learned State ation the gravity of the allegations as act that this is a successive bail o released on bail. l submissions made by counsel for ed a been such. f this n the - been - very e not His ying uch It is, State ns as bail l for AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.04 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-63631- 6. The p co-accused. The na his disclosure stat Tofan Singh Vs. Hon’ble Apex Co NDPS Act, are in material. While th will be tested dur ignored that no re was taken into cus this stage, to conn he was connected Investigation has b for commission o period of over 02 be concluded in n been examined so move for bail afre that an accused ca the bail applicatio repeatedly. It has new cause of acti This principle is a over jail, aiming t the criminal just -2025 (O&M) 3 The petitioner is alleged to have supp he name of the petitioner was disclos re statement, he had sourced the cont Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) ex Court that the disclosure statemen are inadmissible in evidence unless hile the veracity of the disclosure st ed during the course of trial, howev t no recovery was ever effected from to custody in this case on 01.09.2023. o connect the petitioner either with the nected with the co-accused in any n has been completed. The allegations sion of subject offences. However, h er 02 years, 05 months and 01 day. T d in near future as only 07 out of 1 ned so far. This factor, in the opinion il afresh. The Hon’ble Apex Court has sed cannot be kept in custody for an plication can be considered on its o It has also been held that every day s of action for filing a bail application le is a part of the broader approach em ming to balance the rights of the acc l justice system. Prolonged deten e supplied 280 Grams of heroin to the disclosed by the co-accused. As per e contraband from the petitioner. In 21) 4 SCC 1, it was observed by atements made under Section 67 of unless corroborated by independent ure statement against the petitioner however, at this stage, it cannot be from the petitioner. The petitioner .2023. There is nothing on record, at ith the subject crime or to show that any manner at the relevant time. ations prima facie makes out a case ever, he has been in custody for a day. Trial is obviously not going to t of 10 prosecution witnesses have pinion of this Court, is a ground to urt has observed in a catena of cases for an indefinite period of time, and its own merits even if it is filed day spent in custody can provide a ication under certain circumstances. ach emphasizing that law prefers bail he accused with the requirements of detention itself is a ground for o the s per r. In d by 7 of dent ioner t be ioner rd, at that time. case for a ng to have d to cases , and filed ide a nces. bail ts of for AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.04 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-63631- reconsideration of trial should not be of bail on accoun considered in the can be placed upo Muslim @ Hussa wherein it was he be said to be fetter Section 436-A of also observed that often than not, app are more likely to upon Manmandal (Criminal) No.865 of Odisha, 2023 S extended benefit o period by observ precious fundamen in such a situatio embargo contained 7. Relia Chhattishgarh & pronounced verdic 37 of NDPS Act w as it comes with -2025 (O&M) 4 tion of bail since the settled principle o not become punitive. It is well settled account of delay in trial and long pe in the light of Section 37 of the NDP ed upon the observations made by H ussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), as held that grant of bail on account ettered 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 23 SCC Online SC 110, wherein th 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 verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court ob Act will not be a bar for considering th a condition that the prosecuti le of law is that detention prior to settled proposition of law that grant ng period of incarceration is to be NDPS Act. Reliance in this regard Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. lhi), 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 rein 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 ourt observing that rigors of Section ering the case of an accused for bail osecution would press for an early or to grant o be gard hd. 52, nnot ve of was more ates laced ion ate t had long most and utory of ently ction r bail early AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.04 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-63631- completion of tria India held that ap commercial quant incarceration for a 8. Simil v. Central Bureau and inordinate de India, which con several enactment opinion that Sectio on bail if the tria Procedure Code, 1 9. In th Crminal Appeal quantity of narcoti benefit of bail to t 02 years and 08 m 10.

The s No.15699-2025 tit and in the case of of 2025.
11. On an case in the light o -2025 (O&M) 5 of trial. In the above-mentioned case t hat appellant who was being prosecu 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 ate delay engaged the attention of th h considered the correct approach t ctments, including Section 37 NDPS Section 436A (which requires inter a he trial is not concluded within speci ode, 1973 would apply. In the case of Ismail Khan @ Pa eal No.4911 of 2025 with regard narcotic substance, the Hon’ble Suprem ail to the accused in view of prolonge 08 months of the accused.
The similar benefit has been extend 25 titled as Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK ase of Pamesh Arora vs. UT Chandig On analyzing the peculiar facts and light of the aforementioned principle case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of rosecuted 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 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of oach towards bail, with respect to DPS Act. The court expressed the inter alia the accused to be enlarged specified periods) of the Criminal Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan regard to recovery of commercial Supreme Court of India accorded the olonged incarceration for a period of extended 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 rt of n of f her ntil ation rt of ct to d the rged inal an rcial d the d of LP gal 72 esent t the AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.04 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-63631- petitioner has suf months and 01 da 07 out of 10 witn the petitioner is n record to show tha trial or will abscon of bail as co-accus 12. In vie case is made out f petition is allowed his furnishing pers trial Court/Judicia 13. In the petitioner, it shal application seekin 14. Since any, is rendered in 03.02.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 6 as suffered prolonged incarceration 01 day, the trial is not likely to be co tnesses have been examined so fa er is not likely to serve any fruitful ow that if released on bail, the petitio abscond. On parity also, the accused d accused has already been extended th 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 udicial Magistrate concerned. In the event of there being any FIR t shall be open to the respondent to seeking cancellation of bail. Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous.
(MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes
  
ation for a period of 02 years, 05 be concluded in near future as only d so far. The continued detention of ruitful purpose; there is nothing on petitioner will not participate in the used deserves to be extended benefit ded the same benefit.
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 y FIR/complaint lodged against the dent to seek redressal by filing an een allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
s, 05 only n of g on n the nefit hat a , the ct to rned t the g an n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.04 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.