CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----7231 7231 7231 7231----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 109+218 109+218 109+218 109+218 (1 (1 (1 (1stststst case) case) case) case) 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 Joga Singh 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 regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No registered for the off Penal Code, 1860 (for short and Psychotropic Substances at Police Station 2. petition by the petitioner) is as follows: 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) case) case) case) case) 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: 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. Mohit Giri, 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 third petition has been filed under Section Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No registered for the offences punishable under Section Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) [Sections 21/21 and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar Rural. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows: “Statement of Kiran w/o Late Sanjay Kumar r/o Rishi Nagar ward no.10 P.S Phillaur District Jalandhar aged about 40 years mobile 82645-04704. Stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and am a house wife. My husband Sanjay Kumar has died 9 years ago. I have three sons i.e. elder is Rishu and younger to him was Vishu aged about 19 years and Anshuman is youngest to all. Vishu was addicted to drugs. I gave him medicine many a times to get rid of addictio Yesterday on 12.02.2023, I went to market Phillaur for household work. When I came back at my home then there was a gathering of many persons. My son Vishu was lying 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----7231 7231 7231 7231----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 19 August 19 August 19 August 19,,,, 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 for the petitioner. Singh, DAG Punjab. petition has been filed under Section 483 of the (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.29 dated 13.02.2023, ences punishable under Sections 304/ 120-B of the Indian Sections 21/21-B/29 of the Narcotic Drugs (for short ‘NDPS Act’) added later on], Phillaur, District Jalandhar Rural. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present Statement of Kiran w/o Late Sanjay Kumar r/o Rishi Nagar ward no.10 P.S Phillaur District Jalandhar aged about 40 years 04704. Stated that I am resident of above mentioned wife. My husband Sanjay Kumar has died 9 years ago. I have three sons i.e. elder is Rishu and younger to him was Vishu aged about 19 years and Anshuman is youngest to all. Vishu was addicted to drugs. I gave him medicine many a times to get rid of addiction. Yesterday on 12.02.2023, I went to market Phillaur for household work. When I came back at my home then there was a gathering of many persons. My son Vishu was lying 1111 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 2025 2025 2025 Petitioner ….Respondent of the for grant of .2023, B of the Indian Narcotic Drugs , The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present Statement of Kiran w/o Late Sanjay Kumar r/o Rishi Nagar ward no.10 P.S Phillaur District Jalandhar aged about 40 years 04704. Stated that I am resident of above mentioned wife. My husband Sanjay Kumar has died 9 years ago. I have three sons i.e. elder is Rishu and younger to him was Vishu aged about 19 years and Anshuman is youngest to all. Vishu was addicted n. Yesterday on 12.02.2023, I went to market Phillaur for household work. When I came back at my home then there was a gathering of many persons. My son Vishu was lying MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.19 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----7231 7231 7231 7231----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 3. in custody since material against the petitioner is on the basis of disclosure statement of co accused, namely, Karamjit Singh @ Gagi. that offence under Section of the case in han suffered incarceration for more than 4. that the allegations raised he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail seeks to place on record custody certificate dated today, which is taken on record. 5. the available records of the case. 6. investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 24 prosecution witnesses 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) unconscious in the house due to overdose. Chintu s/o Roop Lal r/o Rishi Nagar Ward No.1 indulges in selling of Narcotics and use to inject intoxicating injections. I came to know that abovesaid Chintu injected heavy dose of intoxicating injection to my son due to which condition of my son became serious. I fi Phillaur where doctor referred him to DMC Hospital son to DMC Ludhiana for treatment My son has died due to giving of dose of intoxicating injections by Chintu negligently. Statement got recorded which has been read over to same has been accepted as correct. I am giving my statement in presence of my brother Gagan. Sd/- Kiran (Punjabi) by Sd/- Jaswinder Singh ASI P.S Phillaur Distr 13.02.2023.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has in custody since 21.02.2023. Learned counsel has further material against the petitioner is on the basis of disclosure statement of co , namely, Karamjit Singh @ Gagi. Learned counsel that offence under Section 304 of IPC is not made out from the factual milieu case in hand. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 02 years. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition that the allegations raised against the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail seeks to place on record custody certificate dated , which is taken on record. I have heard counsel for the rival the available records of the case. The petitioner was arrested on investigation was carried out and challan was presented on prosecution witnesses have been cited, and only 2222 unconscious in the house due to overdose. Chintu s/o Roop Lal r/o Rishi Nagar Ward No.10 P.S Phillaur District Jalandhar indulges in selling of Narcotics and use to inject intoxicating injections. I came to know that abovesaid Chintu injected heavy dose of intoxicating injection to my son due to which became serious. I firstly took him to Arora Hospital at Phillaur where doctor referred him to DMC Hospital Ludhiana. I took my son to DMC Ludhiana for treatment where doctor declared him as dead. My son has died due to giving of dose of intoxicating injections by Chintu gently. Statement got recorded which has been read over to me and I am giving my statement in presence Kiran (Punjabi) Sd/- Gagan (Punjabi) attested Jaswinder Singh ASI P.S Phillaur District Jalandhar dated Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is Learned counsel has further argued that prime material against the petitioner is on the basis of disclosure statement of co- Learned counsel has further argued is not made out from the factual milieu Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has . Thus, regular bail is prayed for. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 17.08.2025 in the Court rival parties and have gone through The petitioner was arrested on 21.02.2023 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 29.07.2023. Total and only 01 has been examined and 2222 unconscious in the house due to overdose. Chintu s/o 0 P.S Phillaur District Jalandhar indulges in selling of Narcotics and use to inject intoxicating injections. I came to know that abovesaid Chintu injected heavy dose of intoxicating injection to my son due to which rstly took him to Arora Hospital at Ludhiana. I took my where doctor declared him as dead. My son has died due to giving of dose of intoxicating injections by Chintu me and I am giving my statement in presence Gagan (Punjabi) attested ict Jalandhar dated that the petitioner is prime - has further argued is not made out from the factual milieu Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has arguing , Learned State counsel Court parties and have gone through whereinafter Total and MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.19 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----7231 7231 7231 7231----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 01 has been examined partly rise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to 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 evide 6.1. petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on incarceration of the peti 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 State of Haryana and another versus State of Haryana and another versus State of Haryana and another versus State of Haryana and another principles emerge: 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 01 has been examined partly 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 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 evide Indubitably, the present petition is the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.08.2024. 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 versus State of Haryana and another versus State of Haryana and another versus State of Haryana and another versus State 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 rejected 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 n or earlier petition was dismissed on merits. III 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 circums IV 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 3333 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 third attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner . However, keeping in view further tioner for a period of more than 11 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----2222023 023 023 023 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 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 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. 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 3333 The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. 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 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 hence such petition ought not to be rejected Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as prosecution 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 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 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.19 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----7231 7231 7231 7231----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 6.2. forth by the petitioner, thereof cannot be 17.08.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 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; 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 S State of West Bengal”, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5530 22.08.2022 titled as “Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh vs. The State of Gujarat”; Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated 05.08.2022 t Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma vs. Union of India, and Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024(4) RCR (Criminal) 172; has held, thus: 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this 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 requ 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. 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 02 years, 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; 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 22.08.2022 titled as “Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh vs. The State of Gujarat”; Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated 05.08.2022 t Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma vs. Union of India, and Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024(4) RCR (Criminal) 172; has held, thus: 4444 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). 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 erable 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 , 05 months and 21 days. 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 tate 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 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: 4444 sue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular ired 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 brought folly As per custody certificate dated .2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already 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 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 tate of West Bengal”; “Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan vs. The 2022 dated 22.08.2022 titled as “Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh vs. The State of itled as Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma vs. Union of India, and Ankur Chaudhary vs. MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.19 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----7231 7231 7231 7231----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) prejudice that may result due to impermissible and avoidable delay since pressure o proceed with public suspicion due to unresolved criminal ch passage of time, thus, impairing the ability of the accused to defend prosecutor and after havi particularly where such de 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) “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 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 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 conseque 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 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 doe 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 ch 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 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 inno 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 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 5555 The right to a speedy and expeditious trial is not only a nd 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 referred to Supreme Court’s judgments have laid down a series of decisions opening up new vistas of fundamental rights. The concept of nto 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 sine qua non of criminal jurisprudence. The dockets, the heavy volume of work and the resultant n 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 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 . Accused, presumed innocent, till 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 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 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 5555 The right to a speedy and expeditious trial is not only a nd 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 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 nto 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 nt 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 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 n 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 s 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 the trial with a reasonable dispatch. The guarantee serves a - trial imprisonment; secondly, it relieves the accused of the anxiety and arges 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 . Accused, presumed innocent, till proven otherwise, are life, usually under onerous conditions. Equally important, the burden of detention of cent 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 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.19 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----7231 7231 7231 7231----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 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 multiple cases/FIRs. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the pet the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail FIR in question by 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 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Calcutta High Court in case of 477 477 477 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM Singh v. State of Haryana Singh v. State of Haryana Singh v. State of Haryana Singh v. State of Haryana Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 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 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 3 of the NDPS Act, 1985.” Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved in multiple cases/FIRs. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the pet the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail FIR in question by 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, Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822 Singh v. State of Haryana Singh v. State of Haryana Singh v. State of Haryana Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. 6666 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 reated 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 to be involved in multiple cases/FIRs. 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 ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, ; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Akhilesh Akhilesh Akhilesh , decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Balraj v. State of Balraj v. State of Balraj v. State of 6666 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, 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 reated 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 7 Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved in multiple cases/FIRs. However, this factum cannot be a ground itioner in the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, ; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) Akhilesh Akhilesh Akhilesh Akhilesh Balraj v. State of Balraj v. State of Balraj v. State of Balraj v. State of MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.19 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----7231 7231 7231 7231----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) not warranted in the facts 7. ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned addition to condition Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bou 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 of bail of the petitioner. 9. 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of th 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 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 Cour (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 invo 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. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court nabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. 7777 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 s 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 The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. hall deposit his passport, if any, with the The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating 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 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, rthwith, 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 trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed nabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 7777 Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is 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 /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 hall 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 every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, lved 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, rthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those /Duty Magistrate as directed nabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.19 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----7231 7231 7231 7231----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 10. opinion on the mer 11. application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. August 19 August 19 August 19 August 19,,,, 2025 2025 2025 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 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 Nothing said hereinabove 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 Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.19 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment