CRM-M-21316- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (224) GURJANT SINGH @ RAVI STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. The instant 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. under Sections 21 and 27A of (for short “NDPS Act”) (Section 29 of NDPS Act and Section 201 of IPC added later on) at Police Station Sujanpur, District Pathankot. 2. As per the allegations, on 17.04.2024, while performing patrolling duty, the police off vehicle threw a plastic envelop apprehended. On conducting search, it was found that the envelope so thrown, was containing a sum of Rs.5 lakhs. Apart from that found kept separately in a polythene envelope which was conscious possession of both of them. On asking they disclosed their names as -2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH GURJANT SINGH @ RAVI Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Akun Sheemar, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.47 dated 17.04.2024 registered under Sections 21 and 27A of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short “NDPS Act”) (Section 29 of NDPS Act and Section 201 of IPC added later on) at Police Station Sujanpur, District Pathankot. As per the allegations, on 17.04.2024, while performing patrolling duty, the police officials stopped an Innova car. One vehicle threw a plastic envelope out of the vehicle. Both the occupants were apprehended. On conducting search, it was found that the envelope so thrown, was containing a sum of Rs.5 lakhs. Apart from that found kept separately in a polythene envelope which was conscious possession of both of them. On asking they disclosed their names as IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-21316-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.07.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Advocate for the petitioner petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant 47 dated 17.04.2024 registered nd Psychotropic Substances Act (for short “NDPS Act”) (Section 29 of NDPS Act and Section 201 of IPC added later on) at Police Station Sujanpur, District Pathankot. As per the allegations, on 17.04.2024, while performing patrolling icials stopped an Innova car. One of the occupants of the out of the vehicle. Both the occupants were apprehended. On conducting search, it was found that the envelope so thrown, was containing a sum of Rs.5 lakhs. Apart from that, 15 grams of heroin was found kept separately in a polythene envelope which was recovered from the conscious possession of both of them. On asking they disclosed their names as 2026 petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section for grant 47 dated 17.04.2024 registered nd Psychotropic Substances Act (for short “NDPS Act”) (Section 29 of NDPS Act and Section 201 of IPC added As per the allegations, on 17.04.2024, while performing patrolling of the occupants of the out of the vehicle. Both the occupants were apprehended. On conducting search, it was found that the envelope so thrown, 15 grams of heroin was recovered from the conscious possession of both of them. On asking they disclosed their names as AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.10 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-21316- Gurjant Singh @ Ravi i.e. the present petitioner and Simranjit Singh @ Nikka. They were formally arrested. The recovered contraband and money was taken into possession. On interrogation, they suffered disclosure statement involvement in the crime. On the basis of their disclosure statement accused Harpal Singh @ Bittu as they were alleged t petitioner and co disclosed that they had specifically designed the fuel tank of Innova car bearing registration No.PB smuggled heroin could be concealed by them in the fuel tank. They got recovered the said Innova vehicle from which 8.3 recovered. On the basis of also nominated as accused. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery has been planted upon him. He is in custody since future as only 03 out of 30 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. He is not involved in any other case of similar nature. His involvement in 02 other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefi him. He is ready to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed upon him. The co-accused have already been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the same benefit. petition deserve to be allowed. -2026 (O&M) 2 Gurjant Singh @ Ravi i.e. the present petitioner and Simranjit Singh @ Nikka. They were formally arrested. The recovered contraband and money was taken o possession. On interrogation, they suffered disclosure statement involvement in the crime. On the basis of their disclosure statement accused Harpal Singh @ Bittu and Jaspreet Singh were nominated as additional accused as they were alleged to be involved in smuggling of heroin alongwith the petitioner and co-accused. The petitioner and Simranjit Singh @ Nikka disclosed that they had specifically designed the fuel tank of Innova car bearing registration No.PB-09-V2824 by dividing the same in smuggled heroin could be concealed by them in the fuel tank. They got recovered the said Innova vehicle from which 8.3 the basis of their disclosure statement ed as accused. Investigation now stands completed. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery has been planted upon him. He is in custody since long. There are no chances of future as only 03 out of 30 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. He is not involved in any other case of similar nature. His involvement in 02 other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefi him. He is ready to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed upon him. accused have already been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the same benefit. It is, therefore, argued that the deserve to be allowed. Gurjant Singh @ Ravi i.e. the present petitioner and Simranjit Singh @ Nikka. They were formally arrested. The recovered contraband and money was taken o possession. On interrogation, they suffered disclosure statements admitting involvement in the crime. On the basis of their disclosure statement accused were nominated as additional accused o be involved in smuggling of heroin alongwith the accused. The petitioner and Simranjit Singh @ Nikka disclosed that they had specifically designed the fuel tank of Innova car bearing V2824 by dividing the same in two parts, so that the smuggled heroin could be concealed by them in the fuel tank. They got recovered the said Innova vehicle from which 8.304 KGs of heroin was their disclosure statements, some other persons were now stands completed. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery has been planted upon him. He . There are no chances of conclusion of trial in the near future as only 03 out of 30 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. He is not involved in any other case of similar nature. His involvement in 02 other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. He is ready to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed upon him. accused have already been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too It is, therefore, argued that the Gurjant Singh @ Ravi i.e. the present petitioner and Simranjit Singh @ Nikka. They were formally arrested. The recovered contraband and money was taken admitting involvement in the crime. On the basis of their disclosure statement accused were nominated as additional accused o be involved in smuggling of heroin alongwith the accused. The petitioner and Simranjit Singh @ Nikka disclosed that they had specifically designed the fuel tank of Innova car bearing two parts, so that the smuggled heroin could be concealed by them in the fuel tank. They got KGs of heroin was , some other persons were It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery has been planted upon him. He conclusion of trial in the near future as only 03 out of 30 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. He is not involved in any other case of similar nature. His involvement in 02 t of bail to him. He is ready to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed upon him. accused have already been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too It is, therefore, argued that the AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.10 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-21316- 4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature. The rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in this case. The accused was the principal accused. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 6. The petitioner smuggling of contraband years and 02 months. 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 upon the observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, given the imperative of Sect 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 reformed. Reliance can also be placed upon of West Bengal, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on -2026 (O&M) 3 Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature. The rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in this case. The accused was the principal accused. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel ties at considerable length. The petitioner alongwith the co-accused contraband. The petitioner is in custody for over a period of 02 years and 02 months. The chances of conclusion of trial in near future are 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 upon the observations made 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 436-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 reformed. Reliance can also be placed upon Manmandal and Another v. State of West Bengal, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature. The rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in this case. The accused was the principal accused. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel accused is alleged to be involved in The petitioner is in custody for over a period of 02 The chances of conclusion of trial in near future are bleak. 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 upon the observations made Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 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 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 Manmandal and Another v. State of West Bengal, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature. The rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in this case. The accused was the principal accused. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel involved in The petitioner is in custody for over a period of 02 bleak. 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 upon the observations made Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 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 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 hardened rather than Manmandal and Another v. State of West Bengal, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.10 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-21316- 14.09.2023 and Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533, wherein the Hon’ble 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 an principles must override the statutory embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 7. Reliance can also be placed upon Chhattishgarh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025, Supreme Court observed 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 months. 8. Similarly in Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 engaged the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The court expressed the opinion that Section 436A (which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 would apply. -2026 (O&M) 4 14.09.2023 and Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533, Hon’ble 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 situation, the constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo contained under Section 37 of 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 ase, 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 months. Similarly in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including ection 37 NDPS Act. The court expressed the opinion that Section 436A (which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 14.09.2023 and Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533, Hon’ble 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 d in such a situation, the constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo contained under Section 37 of Reliance can also be placed upon Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025, wherein the Hon’ble 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- ase, 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 months. Antil v. Central Bureau of prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including ection 37 NDPS Act. The court expressed the opinion that Section 436A (which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 14.09.2023 and Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533, Hon’ble 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 d in such a situation, the constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo contained under Section 37 of Santosh Pawar Vs. State of ble 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 - ase, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that appellant who was being prosecuted for being in possession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, Antil v. Central Bureau of prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including ection 37 NDPS Act. The court expressed the opinion that Section 436A (which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.10 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-21316- 9. In the case o Crminal Appeal No.4911 of 2025 quantity of narcotic substance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court accorded the benefit of bail to the accused in view of prolonged incarceration for and 08 months of the accused. 10. Similar benefit has been extended in Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK vs. The State of West Bengal Pamesh Arora vs. UT Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.4872 of 2025 11. On analyzing the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case in the light of the aforementioned principles of law, it transpires that the petitioner has suffered prolonged incarceration for a period of over 02 years and 02 months. The trial of 30 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The petitioner is not involved in the case of similar nature. The continued detention of the petitioner is not likely to serve any fruitful that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate in the trial or will abscond. 12. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the pe petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magis -2026 (O&M) 5 In the case of Ismail Khan @ Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan Crminal Appeal No.4911 of 2025 with regard to recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court accorded the benefit of bail to the accused in view of prolonged incarceration for and 08 months of the accused. Similar benefit has been extended in Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK vs. The State of West Bengal Pamesh Arora vs. UT Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.4872 of 2025 On analyzing the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case in the light of the aforementioned principles of law, it transpires that the petitioner has suffered prolonged incarceration for a period of over 02 years and 02 months. The trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as only 03 out of 30 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The petitioner is not involved in the case of similar nature. The continued detention of the petitioner is not likely to serve any fruitful purpose. There is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate in the trial or will In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magis Ismail Khan @ Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan with regard to recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court accorded the benefit of bail to the accused in view of prolonged incarceration for a period of 02 years Similar benefit has been extended in SLP No.15699-2025 titled as Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK vs. The State of West Bengal and in the case of Pamesh Arora vs. UT Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.4872 of 2025. On analyzing the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case in the light of the aforementioned principles of law, it transpires that the petitioner has suffered prolonged incarceration for a period of over 02 years and is not likely to be concluded in near future as only 03 out of 30 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The petitioner is not involved in the case of similar nature. The continued detention of the petitioner purpose. There is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate in the trial or will In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that a titioner at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. Ismail Khan @ Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan with regard to recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court accorded the benefit a period of 02 years 2025 titled as and in the case of On analyzing the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case in the light of the aforementioned principles of law, it transpires that the petitioner has suffered prolonged incarceration for a period of over 02 years and is not likely to be concluded in near future as only 03 out of 30 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The petitioner is not involved in the case of similar nature. The continued detention of the petitioner purpose. There is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate in the trial or will In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that a titioner at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.10 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-21316- 13. 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. 14. Since the main petition has been any, is rendered infructuous. 10.07.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 6 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 allowe any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No 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 allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No 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 , pending application, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.10 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.