CRM-M-52690-202 IN THE H (228) Buta Khan State of Punjab CORAM: HON'B Present: Mr. A Ms. S MANISHA BATR 1. The petitioner for gra 27.03.2024 registe Substances Act ( Malerkotla on the Bajinder Singh w recovery of 92 Kg had been dismisse 2. It is a day of dismissal o since none out of continuous incarce 2025(O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH Versus
ON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISH Mr. Anil Kumar Garg, Advocate for t Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The present petition is the secon or grant of regular bail in case aris registered under Section 15 of Narc Act (for short “NDPS”) at Police on the allegations that on 27.03.2024 ngh was apprehended on the basis 92 Kgs of poppy husk was effected fr smissed by this Court vide order dated It is argued by learned counsel for th issal of his previous petition, the trial out of 17 prosecution witnesses has be incarceration for a period of about on JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-52690-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.01.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent NISHA BATRA
te for the petitioner
second petition preferred by the se arising out of FIR No.24 dated f Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Police Station Amargarh, District .2024, he alongwith the co-accused basis of a secret information and cted from him. His previous petition dated 19.02.2025. for the petitioner that ever since the e trial has not progressed any further has been examined so far. He is in out one year and ten months. There M) 2026 oner
dent
the ated ropic strict used and tition e the rther is in here AMIT SHARMA 2026.01.27 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-52690-202 are no chances of would not serve against his right a Each day spent by bail afresh. He ha be released on bail 3. Per co the status report petitioner does no allegations agains quantity has been of his absconding NDPS are attracte be released on bail 4. This both the parties at 5. The p conscious possess custody since 27.0 allegations prima However, he has b days. Trial is obvi 17 prosecution wit this Court, is a gr observed in a cate 2025(O&M) 2 ces of conclusion of the trial in near fu serve any fruitful purpose. His pro right as guaranteed under Article 21 ent by him in custody has furnished He has clean antecedents. It is, theref on bail. Per contra, learned State counsel whi report and custody certificate has oes not deserve to be extended the be against him are serious and specifi been recovered from his conscious p nding, if extended benefit of bail. T ttracted. It is, therefore, argued that th on bail. This Court has heard the rival subm ties at considerable length. The petitioner alongwith the co-accu ossession of 92 Kgs of poppy husk. e 27.03.2024. Not even a single witn prima facie make out a case for com e has been in custody for a period of o is obviously not going to be concluded ion witnesses has been examined so far is a ground to move for bail afresh. a catena of cases that an accused can ear future. His further incarceration is prolonged incarceration militates cle 21 of the Constitution of India. ished a new ground for him to seek therefore, argued that he deserves to el while relying upon the contents of has vehemently argued that the the benefit of regular bail since the specific in nature and commercial ious possession. There are chances ail. The rigors of Section 37 of the that the petition does not deserve to l submissions made by counsel for accused was found to be in joint husk. He has been in continuous le witness has been examined. The or commission of subject offences. d of over 01 year, 09 months and 27 cluded in near future as none out of so far. This factor, in the opinion of fresh. The Hon’ble Apex Court has ed cannot be kept in custody for an ation itates ndia. seek es to ts of the the rcial nces f the ve to l for joint uous The nces. d 27 ut of on of t has or an AMIT SHARMA 2026.01.27 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-52690-202 indefinite period o merits even if it is custody can provi certain circumsta emphasizing that accused with the detention itself is of law is that det settled proposition period of incarcera Act. Reliance in Hon’ble Apex Co 2023 SCC OnLin undue delay in tria Act, given the im offence under the living conditions a 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 2025(O&M) 3 eriod of time, and the bail application if it is filed repeatedly. It has also bee provide a new cause of action for f umstances. This principle is a pa that law prefers bail over jail, aimin th the requirements of the crimina elf is a ground for reconsideration of at detention prior to trial should no osition of law that grant of bail on acc carceration is to be considered in the li ce in this regard can be placed up x Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Huss Line SC 352, wherein it was held t in trial cannot be said to be fettered u the imperative of Section 436-A of C er the Act. It was also observed that j itions are, more often than not, appall 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 Odish 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 cation can be considered on its own lso been held that every day spent in n for filing a bail application under a part of the broader approach , aiming to balance the rights of the riminal justice system. Prolonged ion of bail since the settled principle uld not become punitive. It is well on account of delay in trial and long the light of Section 37 of the NDPS ed upon the observations made by Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), held that grant of bail on account of ttered under Section 37 of the NDPS A of Cr.P.C. which is applicable to that jails are overcrowded and their appalling. The danger of unjustified likely to be hardened rather than Manmandal and Another v. State inal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on disha, 2023 SCC Online SC 110, tended benefit of bail to the accused eriod by observing that prolonged ecious fundamental right guaranteed such a situation, the constitutional own nt in nder oach f the nged ciple well long DPS e by hi), nt of DPS le to their tified than tate on 10, used nged teed ional AMIT SHARMA 2026.01.27 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-52690-202 principles must ov the NDPS Act. 6. 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 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 2025(O&M) 4 ust override the statutory embargo c 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.
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.
argo contained under Section 37 of upon Santosh Pawar Vs. State of o.4883/2025, which is a recently urt observing that rigours 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 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 7 of of ently ction r bail early rt of n of her ntil ation rt of ct to d the rged inal an rcial d the d of AMIT SHARMA 2026.01.27 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-52690-202 9. CRM-M-52690-202 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 27 day out of 17 prosecu detention of the p nothing on record participate in the t 11. In vie case is made out f petition is allowed his furnishing pers trial Court and fur his cell phone an during the penden presence before th conclusion of the t 12. It is construed as an ex shall not influence 2025(O&M) 5 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 27 days, the trial is not likely to be co rosecution witnesses have been exa f the petitioner is not likely to serve record to show that if released on n the trial or will abscond.
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 nd further he shall surrender his pass ne and Aadhar card, and shall not endency of the trial. That apart, the p fore the SHO, Police Station concerne f the trial.
It is clarified that the observation an expression of opinion of this Cour luence the outcome of the trial in any m 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 ration for a period of 01 year, 09 be concluded in near future as none n examined so far. The continued serve any fruitful purpose; there is ed 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 is passport, if any, furnish details of l not change his mobile number(s) t, the petitioner shall also ensure his ncerned, once in two months till the vations made above shall not be s Court on the merits of the case and n any manner.
LP gal 72 esent t the r, 09 none nued re is l not hat a , the ct to rned ils of er(s) e his ll the t be and AMIT SHARMA 2026.01.27 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-52690-202 13. Since any, is rendered in 27.01.2026 Amit Sharma 2025(O&M) 6 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 2026.01.27 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.