CRM-M-68423- IN THE H (137) SUNIL DUTT STATE OF HAR CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. H MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 483 of Bh for grant of regul registered under Substances Act, 1 later on) at Police CRM-M No.4758 03.09.2025 passed 2. As pe received to the eff -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH
Versus
HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Nitin Sharma, Advocate for the p Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant one is the fifth petition pr of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh regular bail in case arising out of F under Section 15(C) of the Narco Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS”) (Secti Police Station Sadar Pehowa, District o.47586-2025 was dismissed as w passed by this Court. As per the allegations, on 24.07.20 the effect that one Devraj, a canter dri JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-68423-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.03.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA
r the petitioner preferred by the petitioner under a Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) ut of FIR No.213 dated 24.07.2024 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic (Section 27(A) of the NDPS added istrict Kurukshetra. His last petition as withdrawn vide order dated .07.2024, a secret information was ter driver, used to sell contraband in M) 2026 oner
dent
nder SS”) 2024 ropic dded tition ated was nd in AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.18 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-68423- the State of Punjab Even on that da apprehended with barricade was laid search 326 Kg 56 possession. On purchased from M and Sunil Dutt i.e work for the co- the owner of the c present petitioner concluded. 3. It is a falsely implicated accused which can has been effected take considerable examined so far. custody anymore. reason for denyin gives him a grou against his fundam therefore, argued t -2025 (O&M) 2 Punjab and Haryana by purchasing th hat day he was travelling to Hima d with contraband. Believing the se as laid and the accused Devraj was 560 Gm of poppy straw/husk was On his interrogation, he disclose rom Madhya Pradesh, on the asking o utt i.e. the present petitioner. He fu -accused Sohan Singh and the pe f the canter driven by him. On his disc itioner were arrested on 26.07.2024 It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case on the basis of the d ich cannot be considered to be admiss fected from him. He is in custody sin erable time to conclude as not eve o far. No useful purpose would be more. His involvement in another cas enying benefit of bail to him. Each ground to move bail afresh. His fundamental rights guaranteed by the gued that the petition deserves to be al ing the same from Madhya Pradesh. Himachal Pradesh and could be the secret information to be true, a j was apprehended. On conducting k was recovered from his conscious isclosed that the poppy husk was king of the co-accused Sohan Singh He further disclosed that he used to the petitioner and the petitioner was is disclosure, the co-accused and the 7.2024. Investigation now stands l for the petitioner that he has been f the disclosure statement of the co- dmissible in evidence. No recovery dy since 27.07.2024. The trial will ot even a single witness has been ld be served by detaining him in er case cannot be considered to be a Each day spent by him in custody His prolonged detention militates by the Constitution of India. It is, o be allowed. desh. d be ue, a cting cious was ingh ed to was d the tands been - very will been m in be a tody itates s, AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.18 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-68423- 4. Per c petition being a su co-accused is inv against the petitio habitual offender. case. There are ch of bail. The petiti the poppy husk. I allowed. 5. This C for the parties at co 6. So fa successive petition accused has a righ the duty of the Co consider that any the one taken in th be noted that ever action for filing a kept in custody fo even if it is filed r prosecution must alongwith the co -2025 (O&M) 3 Per contra, learned State counsel g a successive one is not maintainable is involved in sale and purchase of petitioner are serious and specific in ender. The rigors of Section 37 of N are chances of his committing simila petitioner was the owner of the cante usk. It is, therefore, argued that the p This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. So far as the question of maintain etition for grant of bail is concerned, a right to move successive bail applic the Court, while entertaining such a s t any fresh ground which persuade it n in the earlier application is made ou t every day spent by an accused in cu iling a bail application under certain ody for indefinite period and the bail filed repeatedly. The denial of bail c must press for early completion o he co-accused is alleged to have bee unsel has argued that the present inable. The petitioner alongwith the of contraband. The allegations cific in nature. The petitioner is a 7 of NDPS Act are attracted in this similar offences, if extended benefit e canter which was used to transport t the petition does not deserve to be ubmissions made by learned counsel aintainability of this petition being erned, it may be mentioned that, an application for grant of bail and it is ch a subsequent bail application, to ade it to take a view different from ade out or not. It is also required to in custody provides a new cause of ertain circumstances. He cannot be e bail application can be considered bail comes with a condition that the tion of the trial. The petitioner e been involved in the business of esent h the tions is a this nefit sport to be unsel eing t, an it is n, to from ed to se of ot be ered t the ioner ss of AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.18 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-68423- supplying contrab from which the c make out a case However, he is in time to conclude. involvement in oth 7. It is delay in trial and Section 37 of the observations made State (NCT of Del of bail on accoun Section 37 of the which is applicabl overcrowded and t danger of unjusti hardened rather th and Another v. No.8656 of 2023 2023 LiveLaw (S benefit of bail to observing that pr fundamental right -2025 (O&M) 4 ontraband. He is also alleged to be th the contraband had been recovered. case for commission of the subjec e is in custody since 27.07.2024. Th clude. No recovery has been effec t in other case cannot be a sole ground It is well settled proposition of law t l and long period of incarceration is t of the NDPS Act. Reliance in this re s made by Hon’ble Apex Court in M f Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, ccount of undue delay in trial canno of the NDPS Act, given the imperativ plicable to offence under the Act. It w d and their living conditions are, more unjustified imprisonment is that inm ther than reformed. Reliance can also 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 o be the owner of the canter vehicle vered. The allegations prima facie subject offences by the petitioner. 4. The trial will take considerable effected from the petitioner. His round to deny benefit of bail to him. f law that grant of bail on account of on is to be considered in the light of this regard can be placed upon the in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. 352, wherein it was held that grant cannot be said to be fettered under erative of Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. . It 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 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 hicle facie oner. rable His him. nt of ht of n the v. grant nder .P.C. s are . The o be dal al) ha, nded d by cious ch a AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.18 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-68423- situation, the con contained under Se 8. Relia Chhattishgarh & pronounced verdic 37 of NDPS Act w as it comes with completion of tria held that appella commercial quant incarceration for a 9. Simil v. Central Bureau and inordinate del considered the cor including Section 436A (which requ not concluded wit would apply.
10. In th Crminal Appeal quantity of narcoti -2025 (O&M) 5 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 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 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 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 argo of ently ction r bail early t n of f her ntil ation hich ents, ction ial is 1973 an rcial nefit AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.18 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-68423- of bail to the accus and 08 months of t 11. Simil No.15699-2025 tit and in the case of of 2025.
12. On an case in the light o petitioner has suf months and 20 da only 02 out of 1 continued detentio There is nothing o participate in the t 13. In vie case is made out f petition is allowed his furnishing pers trial Court/Chief J 14. In th conditions, the re seeking cancellatio -2025 (O&M) 6 e accused in view of prolonged incar 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 20 days. The trial is not likely to b t of 17 prosecution witnesses have etention of the petitioner is not likely hing on record to show that if released 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 eventuality of breach of the respondent-State shall be at lib cellation of the bail. 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, 07 ly to be concluded in near future as have been examined so far. The likely to serve any fruitful purpose. leased 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. h of any of the aforementioned at liberty to move an application years LP gal 72 esent t the , 07 re as The pose. ll not hat a , the ct to rned oned ation AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.18 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-68423- 15. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 16. Since any, is rendered in 17.03.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 7 It is, however, clarified that the obse 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
  
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
l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.18 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.