CRM-M-4157-2025 (O&M) 226 (2nd case) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Vinod @ Bondi State of Haryana CORAM: Present:- SUMEET GOEL 1. Bharatiya Nagarik regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.270 dated 03.09.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 22(C), 27A the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Act’), at Police Station Sadar Tohana 2. accused of being involved in following contraband: “ (ii) tablets) of Alprazolam, having total weight of 107 grams and 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH Date of decision: Vinod @ Bondi versus Haryana HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.270 dated 03.09.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 22(C), 27A the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Act’), at Police Station Sadar Tohana, District Fatehabad The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving the following contraband: “(i) 152 strips (containing 15 tablets each i.e. total 2280 tablets) of Alprazolam, having total weight of 512 grams; (ii) 50 strips (containing 10 tablets each i.e. total 500 tablets) of Alprazolam, having total weight of 107 grams and 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-4157-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: July 30, 2025 ….Petitioner ….Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.270 dated 03.09.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 22(C), 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS , District Fatehabad. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving the 52 strips (containing 15 tablets each i.e. total 2280 tablets) of Alprazolam, having total weight of 512 grams; 50 strips (containing 10 tablets each i.e. total 500 tablets) of Alprazolam, having total weight of 107 grams and 1 2025 (O&M) , 2025 Petitioner ….Respondent Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.270 dated 03.09.2024, 29 of , 1985 (for short ‘NDPS The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving the 52 strips (containing 15 tablets each i.e. total 2280 50 strips (containing 10 tablets each i.e. total 500 MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-4157-2025 (O&M) (iii) tablets) of Tramadol, having total weight of 444 grams. 3. is in custody since submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that th the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 10 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 29.07.2025 in Court, which is taken on record. 5. the available records of the case. 6. investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 29 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none has date. The prime prosecution evidence available against the petitioner is in the shape of disclosure statement of 2025 (O&M) (iii) 75 strips (containing 10 tablets each i.e. total 750 tablets) of Tramadol, having total weight of 444 grams. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 25.09.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that th the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate .07.2025 in Court, which is taken on record. I have heard counsel for the rival p the available records of the case. The petitioner was arrested on investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 29 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none has date. The prime prosecution evidence available against the petitioner is in the shape of disclosure statement of co- 2 ontaining 10 tablets each i.e. total 750 tablets) of Tramadol, having total weight of 444 grams.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner .2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. as opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate .07.2025 in Court, which is taken on record. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through The petitioner was arrested on 25.09.2024 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 24.02.2025. Total 29 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none has been examined till date. The prime prosecution evidence available against the petitioner is in -accused, namely, Vinod alias 2 ontaining 10 tablets each i.e. total 750 Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner .2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. e trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more as opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate arties and have gone through .2024 whereinafter .02.2025. Total been examined till date. The prime prosecution evidence available against the petitioner is in accused, namely, Vinod alias MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-4157-2025 (O&M) Vilayati who was Bar give rise to course of trial. This Court does not dee these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1. upon the petitioner. As per custody certificate dated learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than 6.2. Punjab passed in upon the ratio Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra a Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2023 INSC 311; Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 dated 07.02.2020 titled as “Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas vs. The State of West Bengal”; “Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan vs. The State of West Bengal”, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5530-2022 dated 22.08.2022 titled as “Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh vs. The State of Gujarat”; Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated 2025 (O&M) who was first arrested in the FIR. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution The trial is procrastinating and folly thereof cannot be saddled upon the petitioner. As per custody certificate dated learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than 10 months. This Court in a judgment titled as passed in CRM-M-64074-2024 (2025:PHHC:002695); af ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2023 INSC 311; Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 dated 07.02.2020 titled as “Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas vs. The State of West Bengal”; “Nitish Adhikary @ The State of West Bengal”, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) 2022 dated 22.08.2022 titled as “Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh vs. The State of Gujarat”; Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated 3 . The rival contentions raised at debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the m it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution he trial is procrastinating and folly thereof cannot be saddled upon the petitioner. As per custody certificate dated 29.07.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a This Court in a judgment titled as Kulwinder versus State of (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi nd another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2023 INSC 311; Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 dated 07.02.2020 titled as “Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas vs. The State of West Bengal”; “Nitish Adhikary @ The State of West Bengal”, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) 2022 dated 22.08.2022 titled as “Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh vs. The State of Gujarat”; Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated 3 . The rival contentions raised at debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the m it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution he trial is procrastinating and folly thereof cannot be saddled .07.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a Kulwinder versus State of ter relying of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi nd another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2023 INSC 311; Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 dated 07.02.2020 titled as “Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas vs. The State of West Bengal”; “Nitish Adhikary @ The State of West Bengal”, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) 2022 dated 22.08.2022 titled as “Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh vs. The State of Gujarat”; Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-4157-2025 (O&M) 05.08.2022 titled as Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma vs. Unio and Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024(4) RCR (Criminal) 172; has held, thus: judgments have laid down a series of decisions opening up new funda jurisprudence. The overcrowded Court jurisprudential mechanism under stress and strain. However, 2025 (O&M) 05.08.2022 titled as Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma vs. Unio and Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024(4) RCR (Criminal) 172; has held, thus: “7.8. The right to a speedy and expeditious trial is not only a vital safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration; to mitigate anxiety and the accusation as well as to curtail any impairment in the ability of an accused to defend himself, but there is an overarching societal interest paving way for a speedy trial. This right has been repeatedly actuated in the recent pas ratio decidendi of the above judgments have laid down a series of decisions opening up new vistas of fundamental rights. The concept of speedy trial is amalgamated into the Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty, guaranteed and preserved under our Constitution. The right to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint imposed at the time of the arrest of the accused and consequent incarceration which continues at all stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible prejudice that may result due to impermissible and avoidable delay since the time of the commission of the offence till the criminal proceedings consummate into a finality, could be averted. The speedy trial, early hearing and quick disposal are jurisprudence. The overcrowded Court volume of work and the resultant pressure on the prosecution and the Police, indubitably keeps jurisprudential mechanism under stress and strain. However, this cannot be an excuse for keeping the sword of Damocles hanging on the accused for an indefinite period of time. It does not serve any credit to the criminal justice syste makes for a sad state of affairs. The guarantee of a speedy trial is intended to avoid oppression and prevent delay by imposing on the Court and the prosecution an obligation to proceed with the trial with a reasonable dispatch. The guarantee threefold purpose. Firstly, it protects the accused against oppressive pre-trial imprisonment; secondly, it relieves the accused of the anxiety and public suspicion due to unresolved criminal charges and lastly, it protects against the risk that evidence will be lost or memories dimmed by the passage of time, thus, impairing the ability of the accused to defend himself. It goes without saying that the consequences of pre trial detention are grave. Accused, presumed innocent, till 4 05.08.2022 titled as Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma vs. Union of India, and Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024(4) RCR The right to a speedy and expeditious trial is not only a vital safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration; to mitigate anxiety and concern accompanying the accusation as well as to curtail any impairment in the ability of an accused to defend himself, but there is an overarching societal interest paving way for a speedy trial. This right has been repeatedly actuated in the recent past and the ratio decidendi of the above-referred to Supreme Court’s judgments have laid down a series of decisions opening up new vistas of fundamental rights. The concept of speedy trial is amalgamated into the Article 21 as an essential part of the mental right to life and liberty, guaranteed and preserved under our Constitution. The right to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint imposed at the time of the arrest of the accused and consequent incarceration which continues at all ly, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible prejudice that may result due to impermissible and avoidable delay since the time of the commission of the offence till the criminal proceedings lity, could be averted. The speedy trial, early hearing and quick disposal are sine qua non of criminal jurisprudence. The overcrowded Court-dockets, the heavy volume of work and the resultant pressure on the prosecution and the Police, indubitably keeps the entire criminal jurisprudential mechanism under stress and strain. However, this cannot be an excuse for keeping the sword of Damocles hanging on the accused for an indefinite period of time. It does not serve any credit to the criminal justice system, rather it makes for a sad state of affairs. The guarantee of a speedy trial is intended to avoid oppression and prevent delay by imposing on the Court and the prosecution an obligation to proceed with the trial with a reasonable dispatch. The guarantee serves a threefold purpose. Firstly, it protects the accused against trial imprisonment; secondly, it relieves the accused of the anxiety and public suspicion due to unresolved criminal charges and lastly, it protects against the risk that evidence will be lost or memories dimmed by the passage of time, thus, impairing the ability of the accused to defend himself. It goes without saying that the consequences of pre- trial detention are grave. Accused, presumed innocent, till 4 n of India, and Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024(4) RCR The right to a speedy and expeditious trial is not only a vital safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive concern accompanying the accusation as well as to curtail any impairment in the ability of an accused to defend himself, but there is an overarching societal interest paving way for a speedy trial. This t and the referred to Supreme Court’s judgments have laid down a series of decisions opening up new vistas of fundamental rights. The concept of speedy trial is amalgamated into the Article 21 as an essential part of the mental right to life and liberty, guaranteed and preserved under our Constitution. The right to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint imposed at the time of the arrest of the accused and consequent incarceration which continues at all ly, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible prejudice that may result due to impermissible and avoidable delay since the time of the commission of the offence till the criminal proceedings lity, could be averted. The speedy trial, of criminal dockets, the heavy volume of work and the resultant pressure on the prosecution the entire criminal jurisprudential mechanism under stress and strain. However, this cannot be an excuse for keeping the sword of Damocles hanging on the accused for an indefinite period of time. It does m, rather it makes for a sad state of affairs. The guarantee of a speedy trial is intended to avoid oppression and prevent delay by imposing on the Court and the prosecution an obligation to proceed with serves a threefold purpose. Firstly, it protects the accused against trial imprisonment; secondly, it relieves the accused of the anxiety and public suspicion due to unresolved criminal charges and lastly, it protects against the risk that evidence will be lost or memories dimmed by the passage of time, thus, impairing the ability of the accused to defend - trial detention are grave. Accused, presumed innocent, till MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-4157-2025 (O&M) proven otherwise, frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his family. present case relate to accused being involved in an FIR relating fundamental right to a speedy trial. The right to life and personal liberty cannot be rendered nugatory by unwarranted purpose. A Court of law is duty fundamental rights, notwithstanding anything contained in a justifiable cause, risks transforming pre punitive imprisonment, an outcome antithetical to the principle 2025 (O&M) proven otherwise, are subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of jail-life, usually under onerous conditions. Equally important, the burden of detention of such an accused frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his family. There is yet anothe deserves consideration at this stage. The allegations in the present case relate to accused being involved in an FIR relating to commercial quantity of contraband under the NDPS Act, 1985. While considering a bail petition in commercial quantity, the Court has to keep in mind the rigours enumerated under Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 which mandates that Courts can grant bail to an accused only after hearing the public prosecutor and after having satisfied itself twin conditions which are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged/alleged and that, he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The stringent rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 must be meticulously scrutinized against the backdrop of accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial. The right to life and personal liberty cannot be rendered nugatory by unwarranted delays in the judicial process, particularly where such delay(s) is neither attributable to the accused nor justified at the end of the prosecution by cogent reasons. An individual cannot be kept behind bars for an inordinate period of time by taking refuge in rigours laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The legislature in its wisdom, in order to ensure speedy and timely disposal of the cases under the Act, has provided for the constitution of special Courts under Section 36 However, this Court cannot turn delays and systematic inefficiency that frustrate this legislative purpose. A Court of law is duty not become complicit in violation of an individual’s fundamental rights, notwithstanding anything contained in a statute. While dealing with bail the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, the Court must strike a judicious balance between the legislative intent to curb the menace of drugs and the sacrosanct right of the accused to a fair and expeditious trial. Prolonged incarceration, without justifiable cause, risks transforming pre punitive imprisonment, an outcome antithetical to the principle of justice and equity. Ergo, the unequivocal inference is that where the trial has failed to conclude within a reasonable time, resulting in prolonged incarceration, it militates against the precious 5 are subjected to psychological and physical life, usually under onerous conditions. Equally important, the burden of detention of such an accused frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his family. There is yet another aspect of the matter which deserves consideration at this stage. The allegations in the present case relate to accused being involved in an FIR relating to commercial quantity of contraband under the NDPS Act, 1985. While considering a bail petition in a case involving commercial quantity, the Court has to keep in mind the rigours enumerated under Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 which mandates that Courts can grant bail to an accused only after hearing the public prosecutor and after having satisfied itself of twin conditions which are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged/alleged and that, he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The stringent rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 must be meticulously scrutinized against the backdrop of accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial. The right to life and personal liberty cannot be rendered nugatory by unwarranted delays in the judicial process, particularly where such delay(s) ttributable to the accused nor justified at the end of the prosecution by cogent reasons. An individual cannot be kept behind bars for an inordinate period of time by taking refuge in rigours laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The in its wisdom, in order to ensure speedy and timely disposal of the cases under the Act, has provided for the constitution of special Courts under Section 36-A of the Act. However, this Court cannot turn Nelson’s eye to the protracted c inefficiency that frustrate this legislative purpose. A Court of law is duty-bound to ensure that it does not become complicit in violation of an individual’s fundamental rights, notwithstanding anything contained in a statute. While dealing with bail petition in a case governed by the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, the Court must strike a judicious balance between the legislative intent to curb the menace of drugs and the sacrosanct right of the accused to rolonged incarceration, without justifiable cause, risks transforming pre-trial detention into punitive imprisonment, an outcome antithetical to the principle , the unequivocal inference is that where the trial has failed to conclude within a reasonable time, resulting in prolonged incarceration, it militates against the precious 5 are subjected to psychological and physical life, usually under onerous conditions. Equally important, the burden of detention of such an accused r aspect of the matter which deserves consideration at this stage. The allegations in the present case relate to accused being involved in an FIR relating to commercial quantity of contraband under the NDPS Act, a case involving commercial quantity, the Court has to keep in mind the rigours enumerated under Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 which mandates that Courts can grant bail to an accused only after of twin conditions which are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged/alleged and that, he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The stringent rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 must be meticulously scrutinized against the backdrop of accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial. The right to life and personal liberty cannot be rendered nugatory by unwarranted delays in the judicial process, particularly where such delay(s) ttributable to the accused nor justified at the end of the prosecution by cogent reasons. An individual cannot be kept behind bars for an inordinate period of time by taking refuge in rigours laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The in its wisdom, in order to ensure speedy and timely disposal of the cases under the Act, has provided for the A of the Act. to the protracted c inefficiency that frustrate this legislative bound to ensure that it does not become complicit in violation of an individual’s fundamental rights, notwithstanding anything contained in a petition in a case governed by the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, the Court must strike a judicious balance between the legislative intent to curb the menace of drugs and the sacrosanct right of the accused to rolonged incarceration, without trial detention into punitive imprisonment, an outcome antithetical to the principle , the unequivocal inference is that where the trial has failed to conclude within a reasonable time, resulting in prolonged incarceration, it militates against the precious MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-4157-2025 (O&M) fundamental rights of life and liberty granted under the law undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned Court/Duty Mag conditions: 2025 (O&M) fundamental rights of life and liberty granted under the law and, as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 ought to be considered as per facts of a given case. In other words, grant of bail in a case pertaining to commercial quantity, on the ground of undue delay in tri by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of above, the present petition is allo ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned /Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following (i) The petitioner shall not mis (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. (viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is 6 fundamental rights of life and liberty granted under the law nal liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 ought to be considered as per facts of a given case. In other words, grant of bail in a case pertaining to commercial quantity, on the ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985.” Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial istrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. not absent himself on any date before The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the vestigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any ffence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is 6 fundamental rights of life and liberty granted under the law nal liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 ought to be considered as per facts of a given case. In other words, grant of bail in a case pertaining to commercial quantity, on al, cannot be said to be fettered Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an wed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to /Duty Magistrate. However, trial istrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or not absent himself on any date before The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the vestigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station phone number without prior The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any ffence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-4157-2025 (O&M) 8. which may be imposed by concerned hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation petitioner. 9. 10. opinion on the merits of the case. 11. application, if any, shall als July 30, 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 2025 (O&M) mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 7 mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous o stands disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 7 mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those /Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the of bail of the Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment