CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----5425 5425 5425 5425----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 110+216 110+216 110+216 110+216 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Gurjeet Khan @ Aami State of Punjab CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present: Present: Present: Present:- SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL 1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No registered for the off Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances at Police Station 2. an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to ND 10000 tablets labeled as Radol motorcycle Hero Honda splendor bearing No.PB recovered from the co Said co-accused tablets of Radol 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Gurjeet Khan @ Aami versus Punjab HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab. ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present second petition has been filed under Section Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No registered for the offences punishable under Section Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Balianwali, District Bathinda. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to ND tablets labeled as Radol-100 (Tramadol Hydrochloride) besides one motorcycle Hero Honda splendor bearing No.PB recovered from the co-accused, namely, Gursant Singh and Sikander Singh accused, in their disclosure, got effected further recovery of 4000 tablets of Radol-100 (Tramadol Hydrochloride) 1111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----5425 5425 5425 5425----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: August 13 August 13 August 13 August 13, 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 ….Petitioner ….Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab. 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.119 dated 26.12.2023, ences punishable under Sections 22(c) & 29 of the Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), Balianwali, District Bathinda. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving (Tramadol Hydrochloride) besides one motorcycle Hero Honda splendor bearing No.PB-12W-6609 allegedly accused, namely, Gursant Singh and Sikander Singh. got effected further recovery of 4000 100 (Tramadol Hydrochloride), and further in their disclosure, 1111 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 Petitioner ….Respondent of the for grant of , of the , The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he is PS Act involving (Tramadol Hydrochloride) besides one allegedly . got effected further recovery of 4000 further in their disclosure, MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.13 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----5425 5425 5425 5425----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) they nominated Hydrochloride) 3. in custody since petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in quest has argued that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has further iterated that assuming the prosecution version is taken to be correct, the prime prosecution evidence available against the petitioner is disclosure statement of co Gursant Singh and Sikander Singh petitioner has suffered incarc prayed for. 4. that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession o 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 d Court today, which 5. the available records of the case. 6. investigation was carried out and the challan was presented on 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) nominated the petitioner, and 1400 tablets as Radol Hydrochloride) (470 grams) were allegedly recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 26.12.2023. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in quest has argued that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has further iterated that assuming on version is taken to be correct, the prime prosecution evidence available against the petitioner is disclosure statement of co Gursant Singh and Sikander Singh. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 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 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 d Court today, which is taken on record. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case. The petitioner was arrested on investigation was carried out and the challan was presented on 2222 1400 tablets as Radol-100 (Tramadol were allegedly recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is . Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has argued that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has further iterated that assuming arguendo, on version is taken to be correct, the prime prosecution evidence available against the petitioner is disclosure statement of co-accused, namely, . Learned counsel has further iterated that the eration for more than 01 year. Thus, regular bail is Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, f 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 dated 12.08.2025, in the I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through The petitioner was arrested on 26.12.2023, whereinafter, investigation was carried out and the challan was presented on 25.04.2024. 2222 100 (Tramadol Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is . Learned counsel has further argued that the ion. Learned counsel has argued that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from , on version is taken to be correct, the prime prosecution evidence accused, namely, . Learned counsel has further iterated that the . Thus, regular bail is Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, f 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 in the I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through , whereinafter, . MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.13 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----5425 5425 5425 5425----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) Total 18 prosecution witnesses have been cited, examined till date. issues shall be 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 pe or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1. petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on incarceration of the petitioner for a period of more than substantial progress in trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in versus St versus St versus St versus State of Haryana and another ate of Haryana and another ate of Haryana and another ate of Haryana and another principles emerge: 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) prosecution witnesses have been cited, till date. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues 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 evidence. Indubitably, the present petition is the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner sed as withdrawn on 25.09.2024. However, keeping in view further incarceration of the petitioner for a period of more than substantial progress in trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRA CRA CRA CRA----SSSS----2332 2332 2332 2332 ate of Haryana and another ate of Haryana and another ate of Haryana and another ate of Haryana and another; relevant whereof reads as under: “10. As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following principles emerge: I Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be re solely on the ground of maintainability thereof. II. Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non or earlier petition was dismissed on merits. III For the second/successive regular succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. The metaphoric expression of seeking seco ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances. 3333 prosecution witnesses have been cited, and only 03 have been The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable 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 titioner absconding from the process of justice Indubitably, the present petition is the second attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner . However, keeping in view further incarceration of the petitioner for a period of more than 10 months and no substantial progress in trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a 2332 2332 2332 2332----2023 2023 2023 2023 titled as Rafiq Khan Rafiq Khan Rafiq Khan Rafiq Khan ; relevant whereof reads as under: As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof. Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-prosecution or earlier petition was dismissed on merits. For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. The metaphoric expression of seeking second/successive bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances. 3333 and only 03 have been The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable 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 titioner absconding from the process of justice attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner . However, keeping in view further months and no substantial progress in trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a Rafiq Khan Rafiq Khan Rafiq Khan Rafiq Khan As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is jected Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as prosecution bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. The nd/successive bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.13 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----5425 5425 5425 5425----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 6.2. forth by the petitioner, thereof cannot be 12.08.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act diluted in light of the Article 6.3. Punjab Punjab Punjab 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 and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 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 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) IV No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substan case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive regular bail petition(s). V In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed. A perusal of the zimni orders passed by the forth by the petitioner, indicates that the trial is thereof cannot be saddled upon the petitioner. .2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 year view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act diluted in light of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This Court in a judgment titled as passed in CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----64074 64074 64074 64074----2024 2024 2024 2024 (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying 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) 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 4444 No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing ive regular bail petition(s). In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed.” orders passed by the trial Court, brought indicates that the trial is indeed procrastinating and folly upon the petitioner. As per custody certificate dated .2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already year, 07 months & 17 days. In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands 21 of the Constitution of India. This Court in a judgment titled as Kulwinder versus State of Kulwinder versus State of Kulwinder versus State of 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 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 @ Bapan vs. The State of West Bengal”, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5530-2022 dated 4444 No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to tial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly brought folly As per custody certificate dated .2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already In this stands Kulwinder versus State of Kulwinder versus State of Kulwinder versus State of 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 Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd 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 2022 dated MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.13 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----5425 5425 5425 5425----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 22.08.2022 titled as “Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh vs. The State of Gujarat”; Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated 05.08.2022 titled as Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma vs. Union of India, and Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024(4) RCR (Criminal) 17 prejudice that may result due to impermissible and avoidable delay since pressure on the prosecution and the Police, indubitably keeps the entire proceed with the trial with a reasonable dispatch. The guarantee serves a public suspicion due to unresolved criminal charges and lastly, it protects passage of time, thus, impairing the 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 22 titled as “Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh vs. The State of Gujarat”; Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated 05.08.2022 titled as Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma vs. Union of India, and Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024(4) RCR (Criminal) 17 “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 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 lai 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 possi 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 sine qua non 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 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 himself. It goes without saying that the consequences of pre are grave. Accused, presumed innocent, till proven otherwise, are subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of jail 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 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 5555 22 titled as “Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh vs. The State of Gujarat”; Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated 05.08.2022 titled as Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma vs. Union of India, and Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024(4) RCR (Criminal) 172; has held, thus: 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 ity 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 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 fundamental right to life and liberty, guaranteed and preserved under our he 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 qua non of criminal jurisprudence. The 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 ended 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 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 proven otherwise, are subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of jail-life, usually onerous conditions. Equally important, the burden of detention of such an accused frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his 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 5555 22 titled as “Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh vs. The State of Gujarat”; Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated 05.08.2022 titled as Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma vs. Union of India, and Ankur Chaudhary vs. 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 ity 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 d 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 he 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 ble 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 of criminal jurisprudence. The 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 ended 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 - 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 ability of the accused to defend trial detention are grave. Accused, presumed innocent, till proven otherwise, are life, usually onerous conditions. Equally important, the burden of detention of such an accused frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his 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 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.13 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----5425 5425 5425 5425----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) prosecutor and after havi particularly where such de justified at the end of the prosecution by cogent reasons. An individual petition in a case governed by the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 6.4. to be involved in against him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail ratiocinating upon the facts/cir regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 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 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 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-A of the Act. However, this Court cannot turn eye to the protracted 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 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 a fair and expeditious trial. Prolonged incarceration, without justifiable cause, risks transforming pre-trial detention into punitive imprisonment, an outcome antithetical to the principle of justice and equity. Ergo, the unequivocal inference is that where the t failed to conclude within a reasonable time, resulting in prolonged incarceration, it militates against the precious 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 trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985.” Further, as per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in 01 more case, in which, production warrants have been issued . However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR 6666 that Courts can grant bail to an accused only after hearing the public ng 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, lay(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 A of the Act. However, this Court cannot turn Nelson’s elays and systematic 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 peditious trial. Prolonged incarceration, without justifiable trial detention into punitive imprisonment, an outcome antithetical to the principle of justice and equity. , 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 fundamental rights of life and liberty granted under the law and, as such, conditional liberty eated 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 Further, as per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated production warrants have been issued . However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by cumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR 6666 that Courts can grant bail to an accused only after hearing the public ng 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 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, lay(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 . 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 Nelson’s elays and systematic inefficiency that frustrate this bound to ensure that it does not become complicit in violation of an individual’s fundamental rights, 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 peditious trial. Prolonged incarceration, without justifiable trial detention into punitive imprisonment, rial has failed to conclude within a reasonable time, resulting in prolonged incarceration, it militates against the precious fundamental rights of life and liberty granted under the law and, as such, conditional liberty eated 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 Further, as per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated production warrants have been issued . However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question the FIR in question by cumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.13 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----5425 5425 5425 5425----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) (Criminal) 586 (Criminal) 586 (Criminal) 586 (Criminal) 586 in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 this Court in CRM Haryana Haryana Haryana Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and (Criminal) 191. (Criminal) 191. (Criminal) 191. (Criminal) 191. not warranted in the facts 7. ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing satisfaction of the Ld. concerned addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bou 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) (Criminal) 586 (Criminal) 586 (Criminal) 586 (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as , decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. (Criminal) 191. (Criminal) 191. (Criminal) 191. (Criminal) 191. (Criminal) 191. (Criminal) 191. 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 satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions: (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 t 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 his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof. 7777 ; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of 2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is 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 the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty nd by the following conditions: The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before hall not commit any offence while on bail. The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 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 mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof. 7777 Court & judgments of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is bail/surety bonds to the /Duty Magistrate. However, in /Duty The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and phone number without prior The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of he 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 of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.13 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----5425 5425 5425 5425----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 8. which may be i hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. 10. opinion on the merits of the case. 11. application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. August 13 August 13 August 13 August 13, 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 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 of bail of the petitioner. 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 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 8888 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 petitioner. inabove shall be construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. ((((SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)))) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE 8888 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 State/complainant inabove shall be construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.13 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment