Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2023 DAILYLAW 4021 (PNJ)

RAM NIWAS @ SONU v. STATE OF HARYANA

CRM-M/70996/2025 · 2026-01-27

Manisha Batra

body2023

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-70996-202 IN THE H (241) RAM NIWAS @ STATE OF HAR CORAM: HON'B Present: Mr. Ms. H MANISHA BATR 1. The p under Section 48 “BNSS”) for gran 18.07.2023 registe Psychotropic Subs Sirsa on the alleg found in consciou petitions have been 2. It is a date of dismissal progressed much a far. The co-accu been extended be incarceration. He otherwise, the exte 2025(O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH AS @ SONU Versus HARYANA ON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISH Mr. Manvinder Sidhu, Advocate for t Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana ****  BATRA, J. (ORAL) The present petition is the 3rd petiti on 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surak r grant of regular bail in case arisin registered under Section 15(c) and 2 c Substances Act (for short “NDPS”) a allegations that on 18.07.2023 he, nscious possession of 73 Kg of pop ve been dismissed by this Court. It is argued by learned counsel for th missal of his second petition for gr much as 09 out of 24 prosecution witn accused Pardeep whose case was o ed benefit of bail on this ground a n. He has become entitled for seeki he extended period of his custody has a JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-70996-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.01.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent NISHA BATRA  te for the petitioner petition preferred by the petitioner Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short arising out of FIR No.0176 dated and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and ) at Police Station Ding, District alongwith the co-accused, was of poppy husk. His previous two for the petitioner that ever since the for grant of bail, the trial has not n witnesses have been examined so was on similar footing has already ound and on account of prolonged r seeking concession of bail. Even y has also furnished a new ground to M) 2026  ioner short ated and strict was two e the not d so eady nged Even nd to AMIT SHARMA 2026.01.29 12:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-70996-202 him to seek bail a allowed. 3. Status counsel has argue petitions have alre in the circumstanc this petition is also 4. This C for both the parties 5. The p in conscious posse case for commissi period of over 02 y concluded in near examined so far. T for bail afresh. Th an accused cannot bail application ca It has also been he action for filing a a part of the broad to balance the righ system. Prolonged the settled princip punitive. It is wel 2025(O&M) 2 bail afresh. It is, therefore, argued t Status report and custody certificate h argued that the petition is not mai ve already been dismissed on merits. T mstances from the 2nd petition dismiss is also liable to be dismissed. This Court has heard the rival submis parties at considerable length. The petitioner along with the co-accu s possession of contraband. The allega mission of subject offences. Howeve er 02 years, 06 months and 7 days. Tri n near future as only 09 out of 24 pro o far. This factor, in the opinion of th sh. The Hon’ble Apex Court has obse cannot be kept in custody for an inde tion can be considered on its own meri een held that every day spent in custo ling a bail application under certain ci broader approach emphasizing that la he rights of the accused with the requi longed detention itself is a ground fo principle of law is that detention prio is well settled proposition of law tha gued that the petition deserve to be icate have been filed. Learned State t maintainable as his previous two erits. There is no substantive change ismissed. It is, therefore, urged that ubmissions made by learned counsel accused was allegedly found to be allegations prima facie makes out a owever, he has been in custody for a ys. Trial is obviously not going to be 24 prosecution witnesses have been n of this Court, is a ground to move as observed in a catena of cases that n indefinite period of time, and the n merits even if it is filed repeatedly. custody can provide a new cause of rtain circumstances. This principle is t law prefers bail over jail, aiming requirements of the criminal justice und for reconsideration of bail since on prior to trial should not become aw that grant of bail on account of to be State two ange that unsel to be out a for a to be been ove that d the edly. se of le is ming stice since ome nt of AMIT SHARMA 2026.01.29 12:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-70996-202 delay in trial and Section 37 of the observations made State (NCT of Del of bail on accoun Section 37 of the which is applicabl overcrowded and t danger of unjusti hardened rather th and Another v. No.8656 of 2023 2023 SCC Online benefit of bail to observing that pr fundamental right situation, the con contained under Se 6. Relia Chhattishgarh & pronounced verdic 37 of NDPS Act w as it comes with completion of trial India held that ap 2025(O&M) 3 l and long period of incarceration is t of the NDPS Act. Reliance in this re s made by Hon’ble Apex Court in M f Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, ccount of undue delay in trial canno of the NDPS Act, given the imperativ plicable to offence under the Act. It w d and their living conditions are, more unjustified imprisonment is that inm ther than reformed. Reliance can also v. State of West Bengal, Specia 023 decided on 14.09.2023 and Rab nline SC 110, wherein the Hon’ble ail to the accused who had been inca hat prolonged incarceration militate l right guaranteed under Article 21 of e constitutional principles must ov nder Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 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 hat appellant who was being prosecu on is to be considered in the light of this regard can be placed upon the in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. 352, wherein it was held that grant cannot be said to be fettered under erative of Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. ct. It was also observed that jails are , more often than not, appalling. The at inmates are more likely to be n also be placed upon Manmandal pecial Leave Petition (Criminal) Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, on’ble Supreme Court had extended n incarcerated for a long period by ilitated against the most precious 21 of the Constitution and in such a st override the statutory embargo 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 case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of rosecuted for being in possession of ht of n the v. grant nder .P.C. s are . The o be dal al) ha, nded d by cious ch a argo of ently ction r bail early rt of n of AMIT SHARMA 2026.01.29 12:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-70996-202 commercial quant incarceration for a 7. Simil v. Central Bureau and inordinate de India, which con several enactment opinion that Sectio on bail if the tria Procedure Code, 1 8. In th Crminal Appeal quantity of narcoti benefit of bail to t 02 years and 08 m 9. The s No.15699-2025 tit and in the case of of 2025. 10. On an case in the light o petitioner has suf months and 07 day 09 out of 24 witn the petitioner is n 2025(O&M) 4 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 as suffered prolonged incarceration 07 days, the trial is not likely to be co 4 witnesses have been examined so fa er is not likely to serve any fruitful 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 ation for a period of 02 years, 06 be concluded in near future as only d so far. The continued detention of ruitful purpose; there is nothing on her ntil ation rt of ct to d the rged inal an rcial d the d of LP gal 72 esent t the s, 06 only n of g on AMIT SHARMA 2026.01.29 12:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-70996-202 record to show tha trial or will abscon of bail as co-accus 11. In vie case is made out f petition is allowed his furnishing pers trial Court/Chief following conditio (i) ind fac ma (ii) circ (iii hea (iv) resi info (v) num swi (vi) det his 2025(O&M) 5 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magi nditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not dire inducement, threat or promise to a facts of the case or tamper with th manner whatsoever. (ii) The petitioner shall not le circumstance without permission of (iii) The petitioner shall appear b hearing. (iv) The petitioner shall provide h residing after release and shall n informing the concerned IO/SHO. (v) The petitioner shall upon his r number to concerned IO/SHO and switched on all times. (vi) The petitioner shall surrender details of his cell phone and Aadh his mobile number(s) during the pe 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 to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on the t directly or indirectly make any se to any person acquainted with the with the evidence of the case in any not leave the country under any sion of the learned trial Court. pear before each and every date of vide his address where he would be shall not change the same without SHO. n his release give his mobile phone O and shall keep his mobile phone rrender his passport, if any, furnish Aadhar card, and shall not change the pendency of the trial. n the nefit hat a , the ct to rned the any h the any any te of ld be thout hone hone rnish ange AMIT SHARMA 2026.01.29 12:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-70996-202   In the petitioner, it shal application seekin 13. It is m the purpose of dec on the merits of th 14. Since any, is rendered in 27.01.2026 Amit Sharma 2025(O&M) 6 In the event of there being any FIR t shall be open to the respondent to seeking cancellation of bail. 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    y FIR/complaint lodged against the dent to seek redressal by filing an vation made herein above is only for and the same shall have no bearing een allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No  t the g an y for aring n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.01.29 12:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.