CRM-M-67226- IN THE H (134) SATYA @ SATY STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. M Mr. R MANISHA BATR 1. The under Section 48 “BNSS”) for gran 27.03.2024 registe Substances Act (fo Her previous petiti 2. As p apprehended by th Parazolam and 39 recovered from Subsequently, the statement. Investi -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH
SATYA KAUR Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS r. Mikhail Kad, Advocate for the pe Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant one is the second petitio on 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surak r grant of regular bail in case aris registered under Section 22 of the Na t (for short “NDPS”) at Police Stat s petition was dismissed by this Court As per the allegations, on 27.0 d by the Police on the basis of a sec and 390 tablets of Uszol-0.50 (both h from her conscious possession. ly, the co-accused were arrested on nvestigation now stands concluded. JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-67226-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.02.2026 ... Petitioner
...Respondent
ANISHA BATRA
the petitioner Punjab petition preferred by the petitioner Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short e arising out of FIR No.22 dated Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic ce Station Sherpur, District Sangrur. Court on 21.05.2025. 27.03.2024, the petitioner was secret information 470 tablets of both having Alprazolam salt) were n. She was formally arrested. on the basis of her disclosure ded. 2026 ioner short ated ropic grur. was ts of were sted. sure AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.24 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-67226- 3. It is in custody since 2 Court on 21.05.2 witness has been has furnished a gr these broad submi 4. Per c being the second s 37 of NDPS Act a being convicted in is under trial in ca extended benefit deserve to be allow 5. This C for both the parties 6. The p of conclusion of witnesses have bee considering an app such as whether th the accused has co accused, likelihoo -2025 (O&M) 2 It is argued by learned counsel for th since 27.03.2024. After the dismissa 1.05.2025, the trial has not progres been examined so far. The prolonge d a ground in her favour to seek con submissions, it is urged that she deserv Per contra, learned State counsel ha cond successive petition is not mainta Act are attracted in this case. The p cted in several cases under the provisi l in cases of similar nature. There are enefit of bail. It is, therefore, argu e allowed. This Court has heard the rival submis parties at considerable length. The petitioner is in custody since 27 on of trial in the near future as on been examined so far. It is well- an application for grant of bail, has t ther there is a prima facie case or rea has committed the offence, circumsta elihood of the offence being repeated l for the petitioner that she has been smissal of previous petition by this rogressed much as no prosecution rolonged period of her incarceration ek concession of bail afresh. With deserves to be released on bail. sel has argued that the instant one maintainable. The rigors of Section The petitioner is a habitual offender provisions of Punjab Excise Act and e are chances of her absconding, if , argued that the petition does not ubmissions made by learned counsel 7.03.2024. There are no chances only 02 out of 11 prosecution -settled law that the Court, while , has to keep certain factors in mind or reasonable ground to believe that umstances which are peculiar to the peated, the nature and gravity of the been this ution ation With one ction nder t and g, if not unsel nces ution hile mind that o the f the AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.24 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-67226- accusation, severit the accused absc apprehension of th the period of inc deciding whether The Hon’ble Ape cannot be kept i application can be has also been he action for filing a a part of the broad to balance the righ system. It is well s in trial and long pe 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 -2025 (O&M) 3 severity of the punishment in the even d absconding or fleeing if release n of the witnesses being threatened, et of incarceration is also a relevant f ether bail should be granted to an acc e Apex Court has observed in a cat kept in custody for an indefinite p 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 PS Act. Reliance in this regard can be ’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Muslim SCC OnLine SC 352, wherein it w ndue 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 e event of conviction, the danger of leased on bail, and reasonable ned, etc. However, at the same time, vant factor to be considered while an accused charged with an offence. a catena of cases that an accused inite 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 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 er of able time, hile ence. used bail ly. It se of le is ming stice elay ction tions of il on 37 of ch is are . The o be dal AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.24 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-67226- 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 commercial quant incarceration for a 8. Simil v. Central Bureau and inordinate del considered the cor including Section -2025 (O&M) 4 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 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 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 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 al) ha, nded d by cious ch a argo of ently ction r bail early ourt n of f her ntil ation hich ents, ction AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.24 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-67226- 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 and 24 days. The of 11 prosecution detention of the p nothing on record participate in the t -2025 (O&M) 5 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 . The trial is not likely to be conclude ecution witnesses have been exam f the petitioner is not likely to serve record to show that if released on n the trial or will abscond. 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 ncluded in near future as only 02 out examined so far. The continued serve any fruitful purpose. There is ed on bail, the petitioner will not ial is 1973 an rcial nefit years LP gal 72 esent t the nths 2 out nued re is l not AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.24 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-67226- 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 23.02.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 6 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 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
   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 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
hat a , the ct to rned for other for aring n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.24 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.