CRM-M-59231- IN THE H (228) SUNNY SINGH STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. S MANISHA BATR 1. The 483 of Bharatiya N of regular bail in under Sections 2 Substances Act, 19 Barnala. 2. The 26.01.2024, a sec was involved in th use to sell them in in the same vicini quantity of intoxi reached at the inf -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH GH Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Rajesh Tushar, Advocate for the Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been filed atiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in case arising out of FIR No.02 ions 21, 22, 25 and 29 of Narco Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS”) at Police The aforementioned FIR was registe secret information was received d in the business of bringing cheap in hem in the city of Barnala and on that vicinity while driving a car and cou intoxicant vials and tablets. A ra the informed place and apprehended JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-59231-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 12.02.2026 ... Petitioner
...Respondent
ANISHA BATRA
or the petitioner by the petitioner under Section , 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant 029 dated 26.01.2024 registered Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Police Station City Barnala, District registered on the allegations that on ived to the effect that the petitioner heap intoxicant tablets and vials and n that very day also, he was present nd could be apprehended with huge aiding party was formed which ended the petitioner with 700 loose M) 2026 ction grant tered ropic strict at on ioner and esent huge h loose AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.13 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-59231- intoxicant tablets recovered from his petitioner was fo statement admittin contraband from h completed. 3. It is a falsely implicated The trial will tak would not serve a against him. It is, 4. Status counsel has argued petitioner, the fact recovered from hi are attracted in thi 5. This C at considerable len 6. The p are no chances of prosecution witnes of law that grant incarceration is to -2025 (O&M) 2 ablets and 500 intoxicant vials of W om his conscious possession which we as formally arrested. On interrog dmitting his involvement in the crime from his brother Pritpal Singh @ Ka It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case. He is in custody f ill take considerable time to conclud erve any fruitful purpose. He is on . It is, therefore, argued that he deserve Status report and custody certificate h argued that taking into consideration he fact that commercial quantity of Wi rom his conscious possession and the in this case, he does not deserve to be This Court has heard the rival submis ble length. The petitioner is in custody for over ces of conclusion of trial in the nea witnesses have been examined so far grant of bail on account of delay n is to be considered in the light of of Wincerex Cough Syrup were ich were taken into possession. The terrogation, he suffered disclosure crime and that he used to bring the @ Kali. Investigation now stands r the petitioner that he has been stody for over a period of two years. onclude. His further incarceration is on bail in other cases registered deserves to be released on bail. icate have been filed. Learned State ation, the criminal antecedents of the of Wincerex Cough Syrup had been d the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS e to be extended benefit of bail. ubmissions made by both the parties r over a period of two years. There e near future as only 02 out of 14 so far. It is well settled proposition delay in trial and long period of ht of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. were he sure g the tands been ears. ation tered State f the been DPS rties here 14 ition d of Act. AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.13 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-59231- Reliance in this re Apex Court in Mo OnLine SC 352, in trial cannot be the imperative of S the Act. It was conditions are, m imprisonment is reformed. Relianc of West Bengal, S 14.09.2023 and R wherein the Hon’b who had been in incarceration milit under Article 21 o principles must ov the NDPS Act. 7. Relia Chhattishgarh & pronounced verdic 37 of NDPS Act w as it comes with completion of tria held that appella -2025 (O&M) 3 this regard can be placed upon the o n Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. Sta 52, wherein it was held that grant of ot be said to be fettered under Sectio ve of Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. which was also observed that jails are o are, more often than not, appalling nt is that inmates are more likely eliance can also be placed upon Man al, Special Leave Petition (Criminal nd Rabi Prakash v. State of Odis Hon’ble Supreme Court had extended een incarcerated for a long period n militated against the most precious le 21 of the Constitution and in such ust override the statutory embargo 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 the observations made by Hon’ble . State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC ant of bail on account of undue delay Section 37 of the NDPS Act, given which is applicable to offence under are overcrowded and their living palling. The danger of unjustified likely to be hardened rather than Manmandal and Another v. State inal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533, tended benefit of bail to the accused eriod by observing that prolonged ecious fundamental right guaranteed such a situation, the constitutional argo contained under Section 37 of 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 ble CC elay iven nder iving tified than tate on 33, used nged teed ional 7 of of ently n r bail early ourt n of AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.13 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-59231- 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 days. The trial is -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 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 eal No.4911 of 2025 with regard narcotic substance, the Hon’ble Supre e accused in view of prolonged incarce ths of the accused.
Similar benefit has been extended 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 fo rial is not likely to be concluded in ne 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 of 02 years and 16 d in near future as only 02 out of 14 f her ntil ation hich ents, ction ial is 1973 an rcial nefit years LP gal 72 esent t the 6 f 14 AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.13 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-59231- prosecution witnes in other cases ca continued detentio There is nothing o participate in the t 12. In vie case is made out f petition is allowed his furnishing pers trial Court/Chief J 13. In the petitioner, it shall application seekin 14. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 15. Since any, is rendered in 12.02.2026 Amit Sharma
-2025 (O&M) 5 witnesses have been examined so far ses cannot be a reason for denying etention of the petitioner is not likel hing on record to show that if released n the trial or will abscond. In view of the above discussion, this t for grant of bail to the petitioner llowed and the petitioner is ordered to g personal as well as surety bonds to hief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistr In the event of there being any FIR t shall be open to the respondent-State seeking cancellation of bail. It is, however, clarified that the obse d as an expression of opinion of this C t influence the outcome of the trial in a Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes 
 

so far. The petitioner’s involvement nying benefit of bail to him. The likely to serve any fruitful purpose. leased on bail, the petitioner will not 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. y FIR/complaint lodged against the State to seek redressal by filing an e observations made above shall not this Court on the merits of the case ial in any manner.
allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
ment The pose. ll not hat a , the ct to rned t the g an l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.13 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.