CRM-M-58771- IN THE H (231) KULWINDER SI STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. S MANISHA BATR 1. The 483 of Bharatiya N of regular bail in under Section 22 o short <NDPS=) at 2. As pe Police officials fo They were carryin started walking w suspicion. The p disclosed his nam bag, 54,000 intoxi -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH ER SINGH @ KIDDI Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Roja Agnihotri, 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.10 n 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotro ) at Police Station Rajpura, District P As per the allegations, on 07.02.202 ials for checking purpose. Two per carrying a brown colour bag. On not king with fast paces. They were a The petitioner was one of them. T s name as Palwinder Singh @ Billa. intoxicating tablets marked with label JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-58771-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.02.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA
for the petitioner by the petitioner under Section , 2023 (for short <BNSS=) for grant 10 dated 07.02.2024 registered chotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for istrict Patiala. .02.2024, a bus was stopped by the o persons alighted from the same. n noticing the Police officials, they were apprehended on the basis of m. The person accompanying him Billa. On conducting search of the label of Lomotil were found kept in M) 2026 oner
dent
ction grant tered (for y the ame. they is of him f the pt in AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.11 13:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-58771- the bag carried b petitioner and co completed. 3. It is a falsely implicated The mandatory pr of effecting the al chances of conclu served by detainin therefore, argued t 4. Status counsel has argue with the fact that t case, the petitioner 5. This C for both the parties 6. The p 28 days. Trial wi been examined so account of delay i the light of Sectio upon the observa Hussain v. State -2025 (O&M) 2 rried by the petitioner which were nd co-accused were formally arreste It is argued by learned counsel for t licated in this case. A false recovery ory provisions of the NDPS had not b the alleged recovery. He is in custo conclusion of trial in the near future. etaining him in custody anymore. Hi gued that he deserves to be released on Status report and custody certificate h argued that keeping in view the grav t that the ingredients of Section 37 of titioner does not deserve to be extended This Court has heard the rival submis parties at considerable length. The petitioner is in custody for a per rial will obviously take time to conclu ned so far. It is well settled propositio elay in trial and long period of incarc Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Relianc bservations made by Hon9ble Apex tate (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC On were taken into possession. The arrested. Investigation now stands l for the petitioner that he has been covery has been planted upon him. not been complied with at the time n custody since long. There are no uture. No useful purpose would be re. His antecedents are clean. It is, ased on bail. icate have been filed. Learned State e gravity of the allegations coupled 37 of NDPS Act are attracted in this tended benefit of bail. ubmissions made by learned counsel r a period of 01 year, 11 months and conclude as only 03 witnesses have position of law that grant of bail on incarceration is to be considered in liance in this regard can be placed pex Court in Mohd. Muslim @ OnLine SC 352, wherein it was The tands been him. time e no ld be It is, State pled this unsel and have il on ed in laced @ was AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.11 13:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-58771- 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 & pronounced verdic 37 of NDPS Act w as it comes with completion of tria held that appella commercial quant incarceration for a -2025 (O&M) 3 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.48 verdict of Hon9ble Supreme Court ob Act will not be a bar for considering th a condition that the prosecuti of trial. In the above-mentioned case ppellant who was being prosecuted quantity of narcotic substance, was n for a period of 19 months.
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 Hon9ble 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 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 Hon9ble Supreme Court ecuted for being in possession of was entitled for bail in view of her to be - rved not, more upon ion ate t had long most and utory of ently ction r bail early ourt n of f her AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.11 13:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-58771- 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 suf months and 28 da only 03 prosecut detention of the p -2025 (O&M) 4 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 Hon9ble 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 days. The trial is not likely to b osecution witnesses have been exam f the petitioner is not likely to serve n the case of Satender Kumar Antil 0 SCC 51 prolonged incarceration f the Hon9ble 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 ration for a period of 01 year, 11 ly to be concluded in near future as amined so far. The continued serve any fruitful purpose. There is ntil ation hich ents, ction ial is 1973 an rcial nefit years LP gal 72 esent t the 11 re as nued is AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.11 13:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-58771- nothing on record 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 10.02.2026 Amit Sharma


-2025 (O&M) 5 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 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 
 

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 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 in any manner.
allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
l not hat a , the ct to rned t the g an l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.11 13:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.