CRM-M-70366- IN THE H (124) GURJIT SINGH STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. R MANISHA BATR 1. The under Section 48 “BNSS”) for gran 08.03.2024 regist Psychotropic Subs District Gurdaspur dismissed by this C 2. The aforementioned of the co-accused ha through drone. T Gurpreet Singh. -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH NGH @ KALU Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS r. G.S. Randhawa, Advocate for the Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Pu ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant one is the second petitio on 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surak r grant of regular bail in case arisi registered under Section 21(C) o c Substances Act (for short “NDPS” daspur. His prevous petition bearing C y this Court vide order dated 05.09.202 The petitioner has been booked ned offences and is facing trial on the sed had procured 470 grams of hero ne. The recovered contraband was fo ngh. JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-70366-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 05.03.2026 ... Petitioner
...Respondent
ANISHA BATRA
for the petitioner G, Punjab petition preferred by the petitioner Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short e arising out of FIR No.015 dated (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and ”) at Police Station Behrampur, aring CRM-M-33207-2024 had been 09.2024. booked for the commission of on the allegations that he alongwith f heroin from Pakistani smugglers was found lying in the fields of one 2026 ioner short ated and pur, been of with glers f one AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.06 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-70366- 3. It is a date of dismissal o months has been p 01 year and 10 m progressed much examined so far. crime and he was suffered by him in in evidence. The parity, he too d incarceration milit the Constitution of new ground to see allowed. 4. Per c successive one and or substantive cha petition. Commer rigors of Section 3 are also not clean. is liable to be dism 5. This C for both the parties -2025 (O&M) 2 It is argued by learned counsel for th issal of his previous petition a period been passed. He is otherwise in cust 10 months. Despite lapse of this m much as only 04 out of 18 prose o far. There is no direct evidence to e was nominated on the basis of the him in some other case which cannot b The co-accused has already been e too deserves to be extended the s militates against his fundamental righ tion of India. Each day spent by him to seek bail afresh. It is thus, argued Per contra, learned State counsel ha ne and is not maintainable. It is also a ve changes in the circumstances from ommercial quantity of contraband wa ction 37 of NDPS Act are attracted. T clean. It is, therefore, urged that the e dismissed. This Court has heard the rival submis parties at considerable length. for the petitioner that ever since the period of more than 01 year and 05 in custody for a period of more than this much period, the trial has not prosecution witnesses have been nce to connect him with the subject f the disclosure statement allegedly annot be considered to be admissible been extended benefit of bail. On the same benefit. His prolonged tal rights granted under Article 21 of y him in custody has furnished him a rgued that the petition deserves to be sel has argued that the petition is a s also argued that there are no drastic es from the dismissal of his earlier nd was recovered in this case. The ted. The antecedents of the petition t the petition is not maintainable and ubmissions made by learned counsel e the d 05 than s not been bject edly sible On nged 21 of im a to be is a astic arlier The tition and unsel AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.06 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-70366- 6. Recov conscious possess the fields of one been supplied at custody for a per conclusion of tria Court, while cons factors in mind su to believe that the peculiar to the acc gravity of the accu the danger of th reasonable appreh same time, the per while deciding wh offence. The Hon accused cannot be application can be has also been held action for filing a a part of the broad to balance the righ system. It is well s in trial and long pe -2025 (O&M) 3 Recovery of the contraband had ossession of the petitioner. Rather th f one Gurpreet Singh. As per the al ed at the instance of the present pe a period of 01 year 10 months an of trial in the near future are bleak. e considering an application for gran ind such as whether there is a prima fa at the accused has committed the offe the accused, likelihood of the offence e accusation, severity of the punishm of the accused absconding or flee pprehension of the witnesses being th the period of incarceration is also a re ing whether bail should be granted to e Hon’ble Apex Court has observed not be kept in custody for an indefini can be considered on its own merits e n held that every day spent in custod ling a bail application under certain ci broader approach emphasizing that la he rights of the accused with the requi well settled proposition of law that gr ong period of incarceration is to be co had not been effected from the ther the same was lying dropped in the allegations, the contraband had ent petitioner. The petitioner is in ths and 16 days. The chances of leak. It is well-settled law that the r grant of bail, has to keep certain rima facie case or reasonable ground he offence, circumstances which are fence being repeated, the nature and nishment in the event of conviction, r fleeing if released on bail, and eing threatened, etc. However, at the so a relevant factor to be considered nted to an accused charged with an served in a catena of cases that an definite period of time, and the bail erits even if it is filed repeatedly. It custody can provide a new cause of rtain circumstances. This principle is that law prefers bail over jail, aiming requirements of the criminal justice that grant of bail on account of delay be considered in the light of Section the ed in had is in s of t the rtain ound h are and tion, and t the ered th an at an bail ly. It se of le is ming stice elay ction AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.06 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-70366- 37 of the NDPS A made by Hon’ble Delhi), 2023 SCC account of undue the NDPS Act, g applicable to off overcrowded and t danger of unjusti hardened rather th and Another v. No.8656 of 2023 2023 LiveLaw (S 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 held that appella -2025 (O&M) 4 PS Act. Reliance in this regard can be ’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Muslim SCC OnLine SC 352, wherein it w ue delay in trial cannot be said to b Act, given the imperative of Section to offence under the Act. It was 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 w (SC) 533, 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 ppellant who was being prosecuted can be placed upon the observations slim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of in it was held that grant of bail on id to be fettered under Section 37 of Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. which is 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, 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 d case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ecuted for being in possession of tions of il on 37 of ch is are . The o be dal al) ha, nded d by cious ch a argo of ently ction r bail early ourt n of AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.06 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-70366- commercial quant incarceration for a 8. Simil v. Central Bureau and inordinate del considered the cor including Section 436A (which requ not concluded wit would apply.
9. In th Crminal Appeal quantity of narcoti of bail to the accus and 08 months of t 10. Simil No.15699-2025 tit and in the case of of 2025.
11. On an case in the light o petitioner has suff -2025 (O&M) 5 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 te delay engaged the attention of the H he correct approach towards bail, with ection 37 NDPS Act. The court expre h requires inter alia the accused to be ed within specified periods) of the Cr In the case of Ismail Khan @ Pa l No.4911 of 2025 with regard narcotic substance, the Hon’ble Supre e accused in view of prolonged incarce ths of the accused.
milar benefit has been extended 25 titled as Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK ase of Pamesh Arora vs. UT Chandig On analyzing the peculiar facts an light of the aforementioned principle as suffered prolonged incarceration fo was entitled for bail in view of her n the case of Satender Kumar Antil 0 SCC 51 prolonged incarceration f the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which l, with respect to several enactments, t expressed the opinion that Section to be enlarged on bail if the trial is the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan regard to recovery of commercial Supreme Court accorded the benefit incarceration for a period of 02 years ended 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 tion for a period 01 year, 10 months f her ntil ation hich ents, ction ial is 1973 an rcial nefit years LP gal 72 esent t the nths AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.06 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-70366- and 16 days. The of 18 prosecution detention of the p accused has also deserves to be ext if released on bail, 12. In vie case is made out f petition is allowed her furnishing per trial Court/Chief J 13. Howe cancellation of b subsequent case. 14. It is m the purpose of dec on the merits of th 15. Since any, is rendered in 05.03.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 6 . The trial is not likely to be conclude ecution witnesses have been exam f the petitioner is not likely to serve also been extended benefit of bail. be extended benefit of bail. There is n n bail, the petitioner will not participat In view of the above discussion, this e out for grant of bail to the petitioner llowed and the petitioner is ordered to ng personal as well as surety bonds to hief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistr However, it will be open for th of bail in case the petitioner is f case. 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
   ncluded in near future as only 04 out examined so far. The continued serve any fruitful purpose. The co- f bail. Therefore, on parity too, he ere is nothing on record to show that rticipate in the trial or will abscond. 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 agistrate concerned. or the prosecution to apply for r is found involved in any other vation made herein above is only for and the same shall have no bearing een allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
4 out nued - , he that hat a , the ct to rned for other for aring n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.06 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.