CRM-M-21772- IN THE H JASPAL SINGH STATE OF HAR 1 The dat 2 The dat 3 The dat website 4 Whethe pronoun pronoun 5 The del judgme CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. H **** MANISHA BATR 1. The under Section 48 “BNSS”) for gran 03.08.2024 registe Psychotropic Subs Nissing, District K -2026 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH NGH @ JASSA Versus HARYANA date when the judgment is reserved he date when the judgment is pronoun he date when the judgment is uploaded ebsite hether only operative part of the judg ronounced or whether the full judgmen ronounced he delay, if any, of the pronouncement dgment and reasons thereof. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Parminder Singh, Advocate for th Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana **** BATRA, J. The instant one is the second petitio on 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surak r grant of regular bail in case arisi registered under Sections 18, 25 and c Substances Act, 1985 (for short “N trict Karnal. The previous petition be JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-21772-2026 (O&M) ... Petitioner ...Respondent served 15.05.2026 onounced 20.05.2026 loaded on the 20.05.2026 e judgment is dgment is Full cement of full Not applicable ANISHA BATRA e for the petitioner petition preferred by the petitioner Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short e arising out of FIR No.331 dated 5 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and ort “NDPS Act”) at Police Station ion bearing CRM-M No.53693-2025 oner dent ioner short ated and ation 2025 AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.20 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-21772- filed by him was this Court. 2. As p apprehended on th grams of opium w arrested. On inte which, Pargat Sin Investigation now 3. It is a falsely implicated The petitioner is s Even his right eye benefit of bail. No anymore. He is i incarceration mili There are no chan 11 prosecution wi custody has furnis argued that the p 4. Per co being a successiv NDPS Act are attr -2026 (O&M) 2 was dismissed as withdrawn vide ord As per the allegations on 03.0 d on the basis of a secret information ium was effected from his conscious n interrogation, he suffered disclosu at Singh was nominated as an additio n now stands concluded. It is argued by learned counsel for t licated in this case. A false recovery er is suffering from several ailments l ht eye sight has also been lost. The ail. No useful purpose would be serve e is in custody for a considerable p n militates against his fundamental o chances of conclusion of trial in the ion witnesses have been examined so furnished a new ground to him to seek the petition deserves to be allowed. Per contra, learned State counsel has cessive one is not maintainable. Th re attracted in this case. The petition de order dated 22.12.2025 passed by 03.08.2024, the petitioner was mation and recovery of 2 Kgs. 870 scious possession. He was formally isclosure statement on the basis of additional accused and was arrested. l for the petitioner that he has been covery has been planted upon him. ents like Tuberculosis and Asthma. The co-accused has been extended e served by detaining him in custody able period of time. His prolonged ental right to be released on bail. in the near future as only 03 out of ined so. Each day spent by him in to seek concession of bail. It is thus, el has argued that the instant petition e. The rigors of Section 37 of the etitioner is a habitual offender being d by was 870 ally is of sted. been him. hma. nded tody nged bail. ut of m in thus, tition f the eing AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.20 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-21772- convicted in 02 ot the co-accused ca argued that the pet 5. This C for the parties at co 6. So f successive one is c move successive b while entertaining ground which per earlier application day spent by an a fresh bail applicat for indefinite perio repeatedly. The d press for early co found in conscious custody for a peri considerable time been examined so account of delay i the light of Sectio upon the observa -2026 (O&M) 3 02 other cases under the provisions o sed cannot be stated to be at parity w the petition does not deserve to be allo his Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. So far as the question of maintain ne is concerned, it may be mentioned ssive bail application for grant of bail aining such a subsequent bail applicat ch persuade it to take a view differe cation is made out or not? It is also r y an accused in custody provides a ne plication under certain circumstances. e period and the bail application can b The denial of bail comes with a cond rly completion of the trial. The peti scious possession of commercial quan a period of more than one year and 0 e time to conclude as only 03 out of 1 ned so far. It is well settled propositio elay in trial and long period of incarc Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Relianc ervations made by Hon’ble Apex sions of the NDPS Act. The case of arity with his case. It is, therefore, be allowed. ubmissions made by learned counsel aintainability of this petition being tioned that, an accused has a right to f bail and it is the duty of the Court, pplication, to consider that any fresh different from the one taken in the also required to be noted that every es a new cause of action for filing a tances. He cannot be kept in custody can be considered even if it is filed condition that the prosecution must e petitioner is alleged to have been al quantity of opium. He has been in and 09 months. The trial will take ut of 11 prosecution witnesses have position of law that grant of bail on incarceration is to be considered in eliance in this regard can be placed pex Court in Mohd. Muslim @ se of fore, unsel eing ht to ourt, fresh the very ing a tody filed must been en in take have il on ed in laced @ AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.20 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-21772- Hussain v. State held that grant of fettered under Sec A of Cr.P.C. whic that jails are overc appalling. The da likely to be harde Manmandal and (Criminal) No.865 of Odisha, 2023 L extended benefit o period by observ precious fundamen in such a situatio embargo contained 7. Relia Chhattishgarh & wherein the Hon Act will not be a b with a condition trial. In the abov appellant who wa -2026 (O&M) 4 tate (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC On ant of bail on account of undue delay er Section 37 of the NDPS Act, given . which is applicable to offence under e overcrowded and their living condit he danger of unjustified imprisonm hardened rather than reformed. Relia and Another v. State of West Be o.8656 of 2023 decided on 14.09.20 023 LiveLaw (SC) 533, wherein the nefit of bail to the accused who had bserving that prolonged incarceratio damental right guaranteed under Arti ituation, the constitutional principles ntained under Section 37 of the NDPS Reliance can also be placed upon h & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.4883 Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that t be a bar for considering the case of a ition that the prosecution would pre e above-mentioned case, the Hon’b ho was being prosecuted for being OnLine SC 352, wherein it was e delay in trial cannot be said to be given the imperative of Section 436- under the Act. It was also observed conditions are, more often than not, isonment is that inmates are more . Reliance can also be placed upon t Bengal, Special Leave Petition 9.2023 and Rabi Prakash v. State ein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had o had been incarcerated for a long ceration militated against the most er Article 21 of the Constitution and nciples must override the statutory NDPS Act. upon Santosh Pawar Vs. State of .4883/2025 decided on 14.11.2025, that rigors of Section 37 of NDPS se of an accused for bail as it comes ld press for an early completion of Hon’ble Supreme Court held that being in possession of commercial was to be - rved not, more upon ion ate t had long most and utory of , DPS omes n of that rcial AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.20 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-21772- quantity of narcoti for a period of 19 8. Simil Investigation, (20 engaged the atten correct approach Section 37 NDPS (which requires in concluded within 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 -2026 (O&M) 5 narcotic substance, was entitled for ba of 19 months.
Similarly in Satender Kumar A , (2022) 10 SCC 51 prolonged inca e attention of the Hon’ble Supreme roach towards bail, with respect to NDPS Act. The court expressed th ires inter alia the accused to be enla within specified periods) of the Cri 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 of Pamesh Arora vs. UT Chandig On analyzing the peculiar facts and light of the aforementioned principle s suffered prolonged incarceration for for bail in view of her incarceration r Antil v. Central Bureau of d incarceration and inordinate delay reme Court, which considered the ct to several enactments, including sed the opinion that Section 436A e enlarged on bail if the trial is not e 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 ion for a period of 01 year, 09months ation of elay the ding 36A s not 1973 an rcial nefit years LP gal 72 esent t the nths AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.20 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-21772- and 15 days. The of 11 prosecution of the petitioner is record to show tha trial or will abscon 12. In vie case is made out f petition is allowed his furnishing pers trial Court/Chief J 13. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 14. Since any, is rendered in 20.05.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 6 . The trial is not likely to be conclude ution witnesses have been examined s oner is not likely to serve any fruitful ow that if released on bail, the petitio 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 hief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistr 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. (MAN Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes Whether reportable:- Yes/No ncluded in near future as only 03 out ined so far. The continued detention fruitful purpose. There is nothing on petitioner will not participate in the 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. 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 out ntion g on n the hat a , the ct to rned l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.20 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.