CRM-M-70447-202 IN THE H (239) SURINDER SIN STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON'B Present: Mr. Mr. R MANISHA BATR 1. The petitioner under S (for short “BNSS dated 28.12.2023 Psychotropic Subs Force, SAS Nagar the co-accused Pa 300 grams of her 21.05.2025. 2. It is a dismissal of the p passed. However, prosecution witne incarceration for m 2025(O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH R SINGH @ GAGGU Versus
PUNJAB ON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISH Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate for Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The present petition is the secon nder Section 483 of the Bharatiya Na BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in ca .2023 registered under Sections 21(c) c Substances Act (for short “NDPS” Nagar, Mohali on the allegations tha sed Paramjit Singh @ Mithu was fou of heroin. His previous petition wa It is argued by learned counsel for th the previous petition a period of mo wever, there is no much progress in th witnesses have been examined so far n for more than 02 years. The trial is JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-70447-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.01.2026 ... Petitioner
...Respondent
NISHA BATRA
ate for the petitioner
Punjab second petition preferred by the iya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 il in case arising out of FIR No.392 21(c) and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and ”) at Police Station Special Task ns that on 28.12.2023, he alongwith as found in conscious possession of on was dismissed by this Court on for the petitioner that ever since the of more than eight months has been s in the trial since only 04 out of 16 so far. He has been in continuous rial is still not likely to be concluded M) 2026
the 2023 392 and Task with n of rt on e the been f 16 uous uded AMIT SHARMA 2026.01.28 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-70447-202 in the near future. has furnished a n already been exten on bail. It is, there 3. Per c petition filed by detailed order. T allegations agains that the petition do 4. This C for both the parties 5. The p found in consciou been in custody si examined so far. Hon’ble Supreme accused cannot be can be considered custody provides trial and prolonge NDPS Act. 6. In this con State (NCT of Del of bail on account 2025(O&M) 2 uture. He has clean antecedents. Eac d a new ground for him to seek bai n extended benefit of bail. On parity, s, therefore, urged that the petition dese Per contra, learned State counsel h d by the petitioner had been dismi er. There is no substantive change against the petitioner are serious in n tion does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submis parties at considerable length. The petitioner alongwith the co-acc nscious possession of 300 grams of h ody since then. Only 04 out of 16 pro far. The trial is likely to take consid preme Court has consistently held in not be kept in custody for an indefin dered on its own merits even if filed re vides a fresh cause of action. Grant longed incarceration must be assesse s context, reliance may be placed on f Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352 count of undue delay in trial cannot be s. Each day spent by him in custody ek bail afresh. The co-accused has arity, he too deserves to be released on deserves to be allowed. nsel has argued that the previous dismissed on merits by passing a change in the circumstances. The s in nature. It is, therefore, argued ubmissions made by learned counsel accused is alleged to have been s of heroin on 28.12.2023 and has 16 prosecution witnesses have been considerable time to conclude. The eld in a catena of judgments that an ndefinite period. A bail application filed repeatedly, as each day spent in Grant of bail on account of delay in ssessed in light of Section 37 of the ed on Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. 352, wherein it was held that grant nnot be said to be fettered by Section tody has ased ious ng a The gued unsel been has been The at an ation nt in ay in f the v. grant ction AMIT SHARMA 2026.01.28 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-70447-202 37 of the NDPS A applies to offence Supreme Court th more often than no rather than reform and Another v. No.8656 of 2023 d 2023 SCC Online benefit of bail to observing that pr fundamental right situation, the con contained under Se 7. Relia Chhattishgarh & pronounced verdic 37 of NDPS Act w as it comes with completion of tria India held that ap commercial quant incarceration for a Vs. State of Raj recovery of comm Court of India ac 2025(O&M) 3 DPS Act, in view of the imperative of ffences under the NDPS Act. It was ourt that the jails are overcrowded an than not, appalling and that unjustified eform an individual. 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 t hat appellant who was being prosecu quantity of narcotic substance, was e n for a period of 19 months. In the ca Rajasthan Criminal Appeal No.4 commercial quantity of narcotic sub dia accorded the benefit of bail to tive of Section 436-A Cr.P.C., which It was also observed by the Hon’ble ded and their living conditions are, stified incarceration tends to harden an also be placed upon, Manmandal pecial Leave Petition (Criminal) Rabdi Prakash v. State of Odisha, n’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 was entitled for bail in view of her the case of Insmail Khan @ Pathan No.4911 of 2025 with regard to tic substance, the Hon’ble Supreme ail to the accused in view of the hich ble are, rden dal al) ha, nded d by cious ch a argo of ently ction r bail early rt of n of f her an rd to reme f the AMIT SHARMA 2026.01.28 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-70447-202 prolonged incarce The similar benef 2025 titled as Ebr case of Pamesh A 8. Upon the light of the a undergone prolong is not likely to be witnesses have be fruitful purpose. likely to tamper circumstances, pec case for grant of re 9. Acco be released on b satisfaction of the Magistrate/Duty M 10. In the petitioner, it shal application seekin 11. It is m the purpose of dec on the merits of th 2025(O&M) 4 ncarceration for a period of 02 years a benefit had been extended in anothe Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK vs. The St sh Arora Vs. UT Chandigarh Crimi Upon analyzing the facts and circum the above principles, it transpires th rolonged incarceration of more than 0 to be concluded in the near future as ave been examined. His continued ose. There is nothing on record to amper with evidence, abscond or i es, peculiar to the case, this Court is nt of regular bail is made out. Accordingly, the petition is allowed a on bail on furnishing personal as of the learned trial Court and learn uty Magistrate concerned. 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. years and 08 months of the accused. another appeal i.e. SLP No.15699- he State of West Bengal and in the riminal Appeal No.4872 of 2025. circumstances of the present case in ires that the petitioner has already than 02 years and 27 days; the trial ure as only 04 out of 16 prosecution tinued detention will not serve any ord to suggest that the petitioner is or influence witnesses. In the urt is of the considered view that a owed and the petitioner is ordered to al as well as surety bonds to the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial 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 used. - n the se in eady trial ution any er is the hat a ed to the icial t the g an y for aring AMIT SHARMA 2026.01.28 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-70447-202 12. Since any, is rendered in 27.01.2026 Amit Sharma 2025(O&M) 5 Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous.
(MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes
  
een allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.01.28 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.