CRM-M- 4084 IN THE (242) SUKHVEER S STATE OF PU CORAM: HO Present: Mr Ms *** MANISHA BA 1. Th under Section 4 “BNSS”) for g 23.07.2024 reg Psychotropic Su Sarwar, District was dismissed b 2. Th allegations that that the petition of sale of heroi side in a swift with contraband laid at the info 40844-2026 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH CR Da ER SINGH Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MAN Mr. Ajay Pal S. Gill, Advocate for Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab **** A BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant one is the second petit ction 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Sura for grant of regular bail in case ari 4 registered under Sections 21, pic Substances Act (for short “NDPS istrict Fazilka. His previous petition issed by this Court on 17.04.2026. The aforementioned FIR was that on 23.07.2024, a secret informa etitioner and accused Dimple Kumar f heroin and on that particular day, th swift car. It was further informed th raband. Believing the secret informati e informed place. The petitioner and JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-40844-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.08.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent MANISHA BATRA te for the petitioner njab petition preferred by the petitioner Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ase arising out of FIR No.82 dated 21, 29 of Narcotic Drugs and DPS Act”) at Police Station Khuian etition bearing CRM-M-15147-2026 was registered on the basis of formation was received to the effect umar were involved in the business ay, they were coming from Abohar ed that they could be apprehended ormation to be true, a barricade was r and accused Dimple Kumar were ioner short ated and uian 2026 s of ffect iness ohar nded was were AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 4084 apprehended. 5 possession whic into possession accused Dimple Gurbalraj Singh were arrested. In 3. It i falsely implicat He is in custody future are blea examined so fa purpose. Each extending benef his fundamenta India. It is, there 4. No 5. Lea while filing cus the allegations extended benefi 6. Th counsel for the p 40844-2026 (O&M) 2 ded. 525 grams of heroin was rec n which was kept in the car occupied ession. They were formally arreste imple Kumar suffered disclosure sta Singh and Arshdeep were nominat sted. Investigation now stands conclud It is argued by learned counsel for plicated in this case. A false recover ustody since 23.07.2024. The chances e bleak as only 02 out of 12 pros so far. His further incarceration is n Each day spent by him in custody benefit of bail to him. His prolonged mental right guaranteed under Artic s, therefore, argued that the petition de Notice of motion. Learned State counsel has advan ng custody certificate has argued that tions as levelled against the petition benefit of bail. This Court has heard the rival s or the parties at considerable length. as recovered from their conscious upied by them and which was taken arrested. On interrogation, the co- ure statement on the basis of which minated as additional accused and oncluded. sel for the petitioner that he has been ecovery has been planted upon him. hances of conclusion of trial in near 2 prosecution witnesses have been on is not going to serve any useful ustody has furnished a reason for onged incarceration militates against r Article 21 of the Constitution of ion deserves to be allowed. advance notice of the petition and d that keeping in view the gravity of etitioner, he does not deserve to be rival submissions made by learned cious aken - hich and been him. near been seful for ainst n of and ty of to be rned AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 4084 7. Th commercial qua possession. commission of t maintainability mentioned that, grant of bail a subsequent bail it to take a view out or not. It is in custody prov certain circumst the bail applicat of bail comes completion of th since 23.07.20 settled proposit long period of i the NDPS Act. made by Hon’b Delhi), 2023 SC account of undu of the NDPS A applicable to o 40844-2026 (O&M) 3 The petitioner was apprehended ial quantity of contraband had been The allegations against him prim on of the subject offences by the petiti bility of this petition being successiv d that, an accused has a right to move bail and it is the duty of the Cou nt bail application, to consider that any a view different from the one taken in t. It is also required to be noted that e y provides a new cause of action for rcumstances. He cannot be kept in cus pplication can be considered even if it omes with a condition that the pros n of the trial. The petitioner has clean 024. The trial will take considerab oposition of law that grant of bail on od of incarceration is to be considered S Act. Reliance in this regard can be on’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Muslim 3 SCC OnLine SC 352, wherein it f undue delay in trial cannot be said t PS Act, given the imperative of Sect e to offence under the Act. It was hended by the police party and been recovered from his conscious prima facie make out a case for e petitioner. So far as the question of cessive one is concerned, it may be move successive bail application for e Court, while entertaining such a hat any fresh ground which persuade ken in the earlier application is made that every day spent by an accused n for filing a bail application under in custody for indefinite period and n if it is filed repeatedly. The denial e prosecution must press for early clean antecedents. He is in custody siderable time to conclude. It is well ail on account of delay in trial and sidered in the light of Section 37 of an be placed upon the observations uslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of rein it was held that grant of bail on said to be fettered under Section 37 f Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. which is t was also observed that jails are and cious e for on of y be n for ch a uade ade used nder and enial early tody well l and 7 of tions of il on n 37 ch is are AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 4084 overcrowded an The danger of u hardened rather and Another v No.8656 of 20 Odisha, 2023 L extended benefi period by obser precious fundam and in such a statutory embar 8. Re Chhattishgarh Supreme Court bar for consider that the prosecu mentioned case being prosecute substance, was months. 9. Sim Investigation, delay engaged t 40844-2026 (O&M) 4 ded and their living conditions are, m er of unjustified imprisonment is that rather than reformed. Reliance can als er v. State of West Bengal, Speci f 2023 decided on 14.09.2023 an 23 LiveLaw (SC) 533, wherein the benefit of bail to the accused who ha observing that prolonged incarcerati fundamental right guaranteed under A uch a situation, the constitutional embargo contained under Section 37 o Reliance can also be placed upon arh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.48 Court observed that rigors of Section nsidering the case of an accused for ba rosecution would press for an early co d case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court secuted for being in possession of co , was entitled for bail in view of her in Similarly in Satender Kumar A on, (2022) 10 SCC 51 prolonged aged the attention of the Hon’ble Sup are, more often than not, appalling. is that inmates are more likely to be can also be placed upon Manmandal pecial Leave Petition (Criminal) 3 and Rabi Prakash v. State of ein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had ho had been incarcerated for a long rceration militated against the most nder Article 21 of the Constitution ional principles must override the n 37 of the NDPS Act. upon Santosh Pawar Vs. State of o.4883/2025, wherein the Hon’ble ection 37 of NDPS Act will not be a for bail as it comes with a condition completion of trial. In the above- Court held that appellant who was of commercial quantity of narcotic f her incarceration for a period of 19 ar Antil v. Central Bureau of onged incarceration and inordinate le Supreme Court, which considered lling. to be dal al) of t had long most ution the of n’ble be a ition - was cotic of 19 of inate ered AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 4084 the correct ap including Sectio 436A (which re is not conclude 1973 would app 10. In Crminal Appea quantity of nar benefit of bail t of 02 years and 11. On case in the light petitioner has su days. The trial 12 prosecution of the petitioner record to show trial or will absc 12. In a case is made o the petition is subject to his fu the learned trial 40844-2026 (O&M) 5 ct approach towards bail, with res Section 37 NDPS Act. The court expr hich requires inter alia the accused to ncluded within specified periods) of t ld apply. In the case of Ismail Khan @ P ppeal No.4911 of 2025 with regar of narcotic substance, the Hon’ble f bail to the accused in view of prolon rs and 08 months of the accused. On analyzing the peculiar facts an e light of the aforementioned principl has suffered prolonged incarceration f e trial is not likely to be concluded i ution witnesses have been examined s itioner is not likely to serve any fruitfu show that if released on bail, the petiti ill abscond. In view of the above discussion, th made out for grant of bail to the petitio on is allowed and the petitioner is o his furnishing personal as well as sur d trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate ith respect to several enactments, rt expressed the opinion that Section sed to be enlarged on bail if the trial s) of the Criminal Procedure Code, @ Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan regard to recovery of commercial n’ble Supreme Court accorded the prolonged incarceration for a period cts and circumstances of the present rinciples of law, it transpires that the ration for a period of 02 years and 22 ded in near future as only 02 out of ined so far. The continued detention fruitful purpose. There is nothing on e petitioner will not participate in the ion, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, er is ordered to be released on bail as surety bonds to the satisfaction of istrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. ents, ction trial ode, an rcial the eriod esent t the 2 ut of ntion g on n the that ngly, bail on of AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 4084 13. It i not be construed case and shall n 14. Sin any, is rendered 18.08.2026 Amit Sharma 40844-2026 (O&M) 6 It is, however, clarified that the o nstrued as an expression of opinion of shall not influence the outcome of the t Since the main petition has been ndered infructuous. (M Whether speaking/reasoned:- Whether reportable:- Yes/No t the observations made above shall ion of this Court on the merits of the of the trial in any manner. allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE - Yes/No shall f the n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.