CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----8551 8551 8551 8551----2025 2025 2025 2025 216 216 216 216 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 Baljeet Kaur @ Balvir Kaur 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 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Police Station 2. is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to alleged recovery of mg SR from and other co- 2025 2025 2025 2025 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 CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Baljeet Kaur @ Balvir Kaur 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 Ms. Jigyasa Kharbanda, Advocate for Mr. Impinder Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate 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 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Police Station Sangat, District Bathinda. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to recovery of 5500 intoxicant pills of Tramadol Hydrochloride IP 100 from a swift car bearing No.HR-66A -accused were the occupants. 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 AT AT AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----8551 8551 8551 8551----2025 2025 2025 2025 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 Ms. Jigyasa Kharbanda, Advocate for 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.73 dated 18.06.2023, ences punishable under Section 22(C) of the Narcotic Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at 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 5500 intoxicant pills of Tramadol Hydrochloride IP 100 66A-8458, of which, the petitioner 1111 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 Petitioner ….Respondent 483 of the for grant of , Narcotic at The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he NDPS Act involving 5500 intoxicant pills of Tramadol Hydrochloride IP 100 8458, of which, the petitioner MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.19 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----8551 8551 8551 8551----2025 2025 2025 2025 3. is in custody since petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. counsel for the petitioner has further submitte provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. petitioner was seated on the rear side of the car in question, from where the alleged contraband was recovered, and that the petitioner had no knowledge thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that, in any case, the prosecution evidence position to influence the trial. petitioner has suffered incar bail is prayed for. 4. arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession 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 16.08.2025 in Court, which is taken on record. 2025 2025 2025 2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 18.06.2023. Learned counsel petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. counsel for the petitioner has further submitte provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot d upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has further petitioner was seated on the rear side of the car in question, from where the alleged contraband was recovered, and that the petitioner had no knowledge Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that, in any case, the prosecution evidence is at the fag end, and position to influence the trial. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than bail is prayed for. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession 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 08.2025 in Court, which is taken on record. 2222 Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner was seated on the rear side of the car in question, from where the alleged contraband was recovered, and that the petitioner had no knowledge Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that, in any case, the , and thus, the petitioner is not in a Learned counsel has further iterated that the ceration for more than 02 years. Thus, regular 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 08.2025 in Court, which is taken on record. 2222 Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner iterated that the Learned d that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot that the petitioner was seated on the rear side of the car in question, from where the alleged contraband was recovered, and that the petitioner had no knowledge Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that, in any case, the thus, the petitioner is not in a Learned counsel has further iterated that the . Thus, regular Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.19 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----8551 8551 8551 8551----2025 2025 2025 2025 5. the available records of the case. 6. investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 15 prosecution witnesses have been cited, examined and 06 have given up vital aspect of the matter that the entire prosecution evidence end as only 02 prosecution witnesses examined. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated u 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 absco process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1. petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed 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 re 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 e 2025 2025 2025 2025 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 challan was presented on prosecution witnesses have been cited, and out of them, and 06 have given up till date. There is vital aspect of the matter that the entire prosecution evidence as only 02 prosecution witnesses are stated to have remained The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. 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 absco 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 was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.10.2024. However, keeping in view further incarceration of the petitioner for a period of more than 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: 3333 I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through The petitioner was arrested on 18.06.2023 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 06.10.2023. Total and out of them, 07 have been There is yet another aspect, nay vital aspect of the matter that the entire prosecution evidence is at the fag are stated to have remained to be The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, pon 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 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 09 months and no progress in trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the ference, 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 3333 I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through whereinafter Total have been nay is at the fag to be The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, 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 nding from the attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner . However, keeping in view further months and no progress in trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the ference, 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.19 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----8551 8551 8551 8551----2025 2025 2025 2025 6.2. passed by this Court in Raj alias Rajinder Singh versus State of Punjab, Raj alias Rajinder Singh versus State of Punjab, Raj alias Rajinder Singh versus State of Punjab, Raj alias Rajinder Singh versus State of Punjab, (2025:PHHC:086951), rel prosecution witnesses, a common ground 2025 2025 2025 2025 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 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. 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. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment passed by this Court in CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----62189 62189 62189 62189----2024 2024 2024 2024 Raj alias Rajinder Singh versus State of Punjab, Raj alias Rajinder Singh versus State of Punjab, Raj alias Rajinder Singh versus State of Punjab, Raj alias Rajinder Singh versus State of Punjab, (2025:PHHC:086951), relevant part thereof reads th “As the prosecution evidence nears its fag end, the very premise for the continued incarceration of the petitioner is significantly attenuated. The apprehension of the petitioner influencing or tampering with the prosecution witnesses, a common ground largely moot in such circumstances. As the venerable legal maxim goes ‘Cessante ratione legis, cessatipsa lex’ ‘Cessante ratione legis, cessatipsa lex’ ‘Cessante ratione legis, cessatipsa lex’ ‘Cessante ratione legis, cessatipsa lex’ ceases, the law itself ceases—duly encapsulates within its ambit, the factual milieu of the instant case. The primary rationale for pre detention, securing the integrity of the prosecution's case and ensuring the accused’s presence at trial, is substantially diminished when the evidentiary phase of the prosecution is virtually com is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the right to a fair trial 4444 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. 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.” At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment 2024 2024 2024 2024 titled Harjinder Singh alias Harjinder Singh alias Harjinder Singh alias Harjinder Singh alias Raj alias Rajinder Singh versus State of Punjab, Raj alias Rajinder Singh versus State of Punjab, Raj alias Rajinder Singh versus State of Punjab, Raj alias Rajinder Singh versus State of Punjab, decided on 16.07.2025 evant part thereof reads thus: As the prosecution evidence nears its fag end, the very premise for the continued incarceration of the petitioner is significantly attenuated. The apprehension of the petitioner influencing or tampering with the prosecution witnesses, a common ground for denial of bail, is rendered largely moot in such circumstances. As the venerable legal maxim goes ‘Cessante ratione legis, cessatipsa lex’ ‘Cessante ratione legis, cessatipsa lex’ ‘Cessante ratione legis, cessatipsa lex’ ‘Cessante ratione legis, cessatipsa lex’ – when the reason for the law duly encapsulates within its ambit, the eu of the instant case. The primary rationale for pre-trial detention, securing the integrity of the prosecution's case and ensuring the accused’s presence at trial, is substantially diminished when the evidentiary phase of the prosecution is virtually complete. Furthermore, it is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the right to a fair trial 4444 Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected 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 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 At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment Harjinder Singh alias Harjinder Singh alias Harjinder Singh alias Harjinder Singh alias decided on 16.07.2025 As the prosecution evidence nears its fag end, the very premise for the continued incarceration of the petitioner is significantly attenuated. The apprehension of the petitioner influencing or tampering with the for denial of bail, is rendered largely moot in such circumstances. As the venerable legal maxim goes when the reason for the law duly encapsulates within its ambit, the trial detention, securing the integrity of the prosecution's case and ensuring the accused’s presence at trial, is substantially diminished when the plete. Furthermore, it is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the right to a fair trial MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.19 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----8551 8551 8551 8551----2025 2025 2025 2025 physical liberty of the accused is often an essential factor. A person judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 6.3. saddled upon the petitioner. As per custody certificate dated by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of involved in any other case/FIR under Section the Constitution of India. 6.4. 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 2025 2025 2025 2025 is paramount, an indispensable facet of which is the accused's opportunity to present a robust defense. Although the right to lead by an accused is regulated by sec 233 Cr.P.C., nonetheless rights. A criminal trial is not a one-sided affair; it embodies the adversarial system where both the prosecution and the defense must be afforded an equal, if not greater, opportunity to substantiate their respective cases. To effectively exercise this inalienable right to lead defense evidence, the physical liberty of the accused is often an essential factor. A person confined to custody faces considerable impediments in consulting with legal counsel, gathering defense witnesses, and preparing their strategy. Denial of liberty at this advanced stage, when the prosecution's evidentiary edifice is almost complete, can severely cripple the defense, thereby striking at the very root of a fair trial. side – is a fundamental dictate of natural justice, and denying bail when there's no palpable risk of witness tampering would be to render this maxim nugatory.At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer her judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘GudikantiNarasimhulu and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court ‘GudikantiNarasimhulu and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court ‘GudikantiNarasimhulu and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court ‘GudikantiNarasimhulu and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh’, 1978 AIR (SC) 429 of Andhra Pradesh’, 1978 AIR (SC) 429 of Andhra Pradesh’, 1978 AIR (SC) 429 of Andhra Pradesh’, 1978 AIR (SC) 429 “11. We must weight the contrary factors to answer the reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare of present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public justice is to be promot detention should be demoted.” The trial is indeed procrastinating and folly thereof cannot be saddled upon the petitioner. As per custody certificate dated by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 02 years, 01 month and 27 involved in any other case/FIR. In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands 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 5555 is paramount, an indispensable facet of which is the accused's opportunity to present a robust defense. Although the right to lead by an accused is nonetheless, it is one of the most valuable sided affair; it embodies the adversarial system where both the prosecution and the defense must be afforded an o substantiate their respective cases. To effectively exercise this inalienable right to lead defense evidence, the physical liberty of the accused is often an essential factor. A person confined to custody faces considerable impediments in consulting with legal counsel, gathering defense witnesses, and preparing their strategy. Denial of liberty at this advanced stage, when the prosecution's evidentiary edifice is almost complete, can severely cripple the defense, thereby r trial. Audi alteram partem Audi alteram partem Audi alteram partem Audi alteram partem – hear the other is a fundamental dictate of natural justice, and denying bail when there's no palpable risk of witness tampering would be to render this maxim nugatory.At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘GudikantiNarasimhulu and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court ‘GudikantiNarasimhulu and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court ‘GudikantiNarasimhulu and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court ‘GudikantiNarasimhulu and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh’, 1978 AIR (SC) 429 of Andhra Pradesh’, 1978 AIR (SC) 429 of Andhra Pradesh’, 1978 AIR (SC) 429 of Andhra Pradesh’, 1978 AIR (SC) 429, relevant part thereof reads as 1. We must weight the contrary factors to answer the test the reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare of present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical ” is indeed procrastinating and folly thereof cannot be saddled upon the petitioner. As per custody certificate dated 16.08.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration 27 days, & is not shown to be In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted in light of the Article 21 of 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 he 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 5555 is paramount, an indispensable facet of which is the accused's opportunity to present a robust defense. Although the right to lead by an accused is , it is one of the most valuable sided affair; it embodies the adversarial system where both the prosecution and the defense must be afforded an o substantiate their respective cases. To effectively exercise this inalienable right to lead defense evidence, the physical liberty of the accused is often an essential factor. A person confined to custody faces considerable impediments in consulting with legal counsel, gathering defense witnesses, and preparing their strategy. Denial of liberty at this advanced stage, when the prosecution's evidentiary edifice is almost complete, can severely cripple the defense, thereby hear the other is a fundamental dictate of natural justice, and denying bail when there's no palpable risk of witness tampering would be to render this ein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘GudikantiNarasimhulu and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court ‘GudikantiNarasimhulu and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court ‘GudikantiNarasimhulu and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court ‘GudikantiNarasimhulu and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court test the reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare of present his case than one remanded in ed, mechanical is indeed procrastinating and folly thereof cannot be .08.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration , & is not shown to be In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted in light of the Article 21 of Kulwinder versus State of Kulwinder versus State of Kulwinder versus State of Kulwinder versus State of (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying he 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.19 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----8551 8551 8551 8551----2025 2025 2025 2025 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 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 (Criminal) 172; has held, thus: prejudice that may resu 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 2025 2025 2025 2025 Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; ohd 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 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: “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 overarching societal interest paving way for a speedy trial. This right has been repeatedly actuated in the recent past and the ratio decidendi of the above-referred to Supreme Court’s judgments have laid down a series of decisions opening up new vistas of fundamental rights. The concept of speedy trial is amalgamated into the Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty, guaranteed and preserved under our Constitution. The right to speedy trial be imposed at the time of the arrest of the accused and consequent incarceration which continues at all stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible prejudice that may result due to impermissible and avoidable delay since the time of the commission of the offence till the criminal proceedings consummate into a finality, could be averted. The speedy trial, early hearing and quick disposal are 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 a 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 6666 Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; ohd 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.) 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, of Madhya Pradesh, 2024(4) RCR The right to a speedy and expeditious trial is not only a vital safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration; to mitigate anxiety and concern accompanying the accusation as well as to curtail any impairment in the ability of an accused to defend himself, but there is an overarching societal interest paving way for a speedy trial. This right has been repeatedly actuated in the recent past and the ratio decidendi of the referred to Supreme Court’s judgments have laid down a series of s opening up new vistas of fundamental rights. The concept of speedy trial is amalgamated into the Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty, guaranteed and preserved under our Constitution. The right to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint imposed at the time of the arrest of the accused and consequent incarceration which continues at all stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible lt 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 pressure on the prosecution and the Police, indubitably keeps the entire criminal jurisprudential mechanism under stress and strain. However, this eping 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- y, it relieves the accused of the anxiety and public suspicion due to unresolved criminal charges and lastly, it protects 6666 Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; ohd 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 @ to Appeal (Crl.) 2022 dated 22.08.2022 titled as “Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh vs. The State of Gujarat”; Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated 05.08.2022 titled as Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma vs. Union of India, of Madhya Pradesh, 2024(4) RCR The right to a speedy and expeditious trial is not only a vital safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration; to mitigate anxiety and concern accompanying the accusation as well as to curtail any 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 s 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 gins 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 lt 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 udence. 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 eping 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 nd 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 - y, it relieves the accused of the anxiety and public suspicion due to unresolved criminal charges and lastly, it protects MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.19 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----8551 8551 8551 8551----2025 2025 2025 2025 passage of time, thus, impairing the ability of the accused to d prosecutor and after having satisfied itself of twin conditions which are particularly where such delay(s) is neither attributable to the accused nor 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, 2025 2025 2025 2025 against the risk that evidence will be lost or memories dimmed by the passage of time, thus, impairing the ability of the accused to d 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 a bail petition in a case involving commercial quantity, the Court has to keep in mind the rigours enumerated under Section 37 of N that Courts can grant bail to an accused only after hearing the public prosecutor and after having satisfied itself of twin conditions which are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged/alleged and that, he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The stringent rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 must be meticulously scrutinized against the backdrop of accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial. The right to li cannot be rendered nugatory by unwarranted delays in the judicial process, particularly where such delay(s) is neither attributable to the accused nor justified at the end of the prosecution by cogent reasons. An individual cannot be kept behind bars for an inordinate period of time by taking refuge in rigours laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The legislature in its wisdom, in order to ensure speedy and timely disposal of the cases under the Act, has provided for the co 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 dealing with bail petition in a case governed by the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, the Court must strike a judiciou 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 imprison an outcome antithetical to the principle of justice and equity. Ergo, the unequivocal inference is that where the trial has failed to conclude within a reasonable time, resulting in prolonged incarceration, it militates against the precious funda 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.” 7777 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 y 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 prosecutor and after having satisfied itself of twin conditions which are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the rged/alleged and that, he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The stringent rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 must be meticulously scrutinized against the backdrop of accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial. The right to life and personal liberty cannot be rendered nugatory by unwarranted delays in the judicial process, particularly where such delay(s) is neither attributable to the accused nor justified at the end of the prosecution by cogent reasons. An individual e 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 to the protracted delays and systematic inefficiency that frustrate this legislative purpose. A Court of law is duty-bound to ensure that it does become complicit in violation of an individual’s fundamental rights, notwithstanding anything contained in a statute. While dealing with bail petition in a case governed by the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, the Court must strike a judicious balance between the legislative intent to curb the menace of drugs and the sacrosanct right of the accused to a fair and expeditious 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 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 a case pertaining to commercial quantity, on the ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 7777 against the risk that evidence will be lost or memories dimmed by the efend trial detention are grave. Accused, presumed innocent, till proven otherwise, are life, usually y 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 DPS 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 rged/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 fe 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 e 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 nstitution of special Courts Nelson’s to the protracted delays and systematic inefficiency that frustrate this bound to ensure that it does 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, s 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 ment, , the unequivocal inference is that where the trial has failed to conclude within a reasonable time, resulting in prolonged mental 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 a case pertaining to commercial quantity, on the ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.19 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----8551 8551 8551 8551----2025 2025 2025 2025 undertrial is not warranted in the facts and 7. ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bou conditions: 8. which may be imposed by concerned 2025 2025 2025 2025 Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned /Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bou (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 (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. (viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, 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 8888 Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an circumstances of the case. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial /Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. tioner 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 osit 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 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 In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed 8888 Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an 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 /Duty Magistrate. However, trial nd by the following tioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on osit his passport, if any, with the The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station phone number without prior The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the 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 for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those /Duty Magistrate as directed MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.19 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----8551 8551 8551 8551----2025 2025 2025 2025 hereinabove o 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 19 August 19 August 19 August 19,,,, 2025 2025 2025 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 2025 2025 2025 2025 hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the 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 9999 r upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. ((((SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)))) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE 9999 r upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.19 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment