CRM-M-47677- IN THE H (122) LAKHWINDER STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. K Ms. S MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 483 of Bh for grant of regul registered under Substances Act (fo at Police Station 2. As p information to th Pakistani smuggle Indo-Pak border t mobile phone and he was roaming -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH
DER SINGH @ LAKHI Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Mr. Karandeep Singh Sidhu, Advocat Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition that has been of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh f regular bail in case arising out of under Section 21(C) of the Narco (for short “NDPS”) (Section 27 of tion SSOC Fazilka, District Fazilka. As per the allegations, on 27.04.2 to the effect that the present petit ugglers and was indulged in supply rder through drone and was in touch ne and used to conversate with them ming at the Border Road, Railway C JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-47677-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.02.2026 ... Petitioner
...Respondent
ANISHA BATRA
dvocate for the petitioner been filed by the petitioner under a Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) ut of FIR No.08 dated 27.04.2024 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic of the NDPS Act added later on) 7.04.2024, on receipt of a secret t petitioner was having links with supply/sale of heroin received from touch with Pakistani smugglers on them and also on that point of time, lway Crossing, Ferozepur City and 2026 nder ) 2024 ropic r on) ecret with from rs on , and AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.24 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-47677- could be apprehen was sent to the p the border road currency note of suffered disclosure of heroin which w was kept in a p possession. The concluded. 3. It is a falsely implicated is in custody since effected does not person and the pe considerable time been examined so custody anymore. reason for denyin deserves to be allo 4. Per c report has vehem levelled against th recovered from h -2025 (O&M) 2 prehended with contraband, a raiding the police station for registration of FIR road and apprehended the petitione te of Rs.500/- were recovered from closure statement and in pursuance the hich was concealed underneath the so packet rapped with an iron wire The petitioner was formally arreste It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case. A false recovery h y since long. The land from where th es not belong to his father or himse the petitioner has no concern with t e time to conclude as only 07 out of 2 ned so far. No useful purpose would more. His involvement in another cas enying benefit of bail to him. It is be allowed. Per contra, learned State counsel w vehemently argued that there are ser inst the petitioner. Commercial qua rom his conscious possession. He iding party was formed. Intimation of FIR. The Police party reached at titioner. Two mobile phones and d from him. On interrogation, he ce thereof got recovered 500 grams the soil in the land of his father. It n wire. The same was taken into arrested. Investigation now stands l for the petitioner that he has been very has been planted upon him. He here the recovery has been allegedly himself but belongs to some other with the same. The trial will take ut of 27 prosecution witnesses have ould be served by detaining him in er case cannot be considered to be a It is thus, argued that the petition nsel while relying upon the status are serious and specific allegations al quantity of contraband had been He is a habitual offender being ation ed at and , he rams r. It into tands been . He edly other take have m in be a tition tatus tions been eing AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.24 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-47677- involved in one m Act are attracted committing simila that the petition do 5. This C for both the parties 6. The p for further investi are bleak as only 0 It is well settled p and long period of the NDPS Act. Re by Hon’ble Apex 2023 SCC OnLin undue delay in tria Act, given the im offence under the living conditions a imprisonment is reformed. Relianc of West Bengal, S 14.09.2023 and R wherein the Hon’b -2025 (O&M) 3 one more case of similar nature. The ted in this case. There are ch similar offences, if extended benefit o tion does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submis parties at considerable length. The petitioner is in custody since 27 investigation. The chances of conclus only 07 out of 27 prosecution witness ttled proposition of law that grant of b riod of incarceration is to be considere ct. Reliance in this regard can be place pex Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hu Line SC 352, wherein it was held t in trial cannot be said to be fettered u the imperative of Section 436-A of C er the Act. It was also observed that j itions are, more often than not, appall nt is that inmates are more likely eliance can also be placed upon Man al, Special Leave Petition (Criminal nd Rabi Prakash v. State of Odis on’ble Supreme Court had extended . The rigors of Section 37 of NDPS are chances of his absconding or nefit of bail. It is, therefore, stressed ubmissions made by learned counsel nce 27.04.2024. He is not required onclusion of trial in the near future itnesses have been examined so far. nt of bail on account of delay in trial nsidered in the light of Section 37 of e placed upon the observations made Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), held that grant of bail on account of ttered under Section 37 of the NDPS A of Cr.P.C. which is applicable to that jails are overcrowded and their appalling. The danger of unjustified likely to be hardened rather than Manmandal and Another v. State inal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533, tended benefit of bail to the accused DPS g or ssed unsel uired uture far. trial 37 of ade hi), nt of DPS le to their tified than tate on 33, used AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.24 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-47677- who had been in incarceration milit under Article 21 o principles must ov the NDPS Act. 7. Relia Chhattishgarh & pronounced verdic 37 of NDPS Act w as it comes with completion of tria held that appella commercial quant incarceration for a 8. Simil v. Central Bureau and inordinate del considered the cor including Section 436A (which requ not concluded wit would apply.
-2025 (O&M) 4 een incarcerated for a long period n militated against the most precious le 21 of the Constitution and in such ust override the statutory embargo c Reliance can also be placed upon h & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.48 verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court ob Act will not be a bar for considering with a condition that the prosecuti of trial. In the above-mentioned case ppellant who was being prosecuted quantity of narcotic substance, was e n for a period of 19 months.
Similarly in another case i.e. in the c reau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SC te delay engaged the attention of the H he correct approach towards bail, with ection 37 NDPS Act. The court expre h requires inter alia the accused to be ed within specified periods) of the Cr eriod by observing that prolonged ecious fundamental right guaranteed such a situation, the constitutional argo contained under Section 37 of upon Santosh Pawar Vs. State of o.4883/2025, which is a recently ourt observing that rigors of Section ering the case of an accused for bail osecution would press for an early d case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ecuted for being in possession of was entitled for bail in view of her n the case of Satender Kumar Antil 0 SCC 51 prolonged incarceration f the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which l, with respect to several enactments, t expressed the opinion that Section to be enlarged on bail if the trial is the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 nged teed ional 7 of of ently ction r bail early ourt n of f her ntil ation hich ents, ction ial is 1973 AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.24 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-47677- 9. In th Crminal Appeal quantity of narcoti of bail to the accus and 08 months of t 10. Simil No.15699-2025 tit and in the case of of 2025.
11. On an case in the light o petitioner has suf months and 23 da only 07 out of involvement in o benefit of bail to h serve any fruitful p bail, the petitioner 12. In vie case is made out f petition is allowed -2025 (O&M) 5 In the case of Ismail Khan @ Pa eal No.4911 of 2025 with regard narcotic substance, the Hon’ble Supre e accused in view of prolonged incarce ths of the accused.
Similar benefit has been extended 25 titled as Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK ase of Pamesh Arora vs. UT Chandig On analyzing the peculiar facts and light of the aforementioned principle uffered prolonged incarceration days. The trial is not likely to b t of 27 prosecution witnesses have t in other case cannot be considered ail to him. The continued detention o uitful purpose. There is nothing on rec itioner will not participate in the trial o In view of the above discussion, this e out for grant of bail to the petitioner llowed and the petitioner is ordered to Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan regard to recovery of commercial Supreme Court accorded the benefit incarceration for a period of 02 years ended in another appeal i.e. SLP SK vs. The State of West Bengal ndigarh Criminal Appeal No.4872 ts and circumstances of the present nciples of law, it transpires that the ration for a period of 01 year, 09 ly to be concluded in near future as have been examined so far. His sidered to be a reason for denying tion of the petitioner is not likely to on record to show that if released on trial or will abscond. n, this Court is of the opinion that a itioner at this stage. Accordingly, the ered to be released on bail subject to an rcial nefit years LP gal 72 esent t the r, 09 re as His ying ly to d on hat a , the ct to AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.24 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-47677- his furnishing pers trial Court/Chief J 13. In the petitioner, it shal application seekin 14. It is m the purpose of dec on the merits of th 15. Since any, is rendered in 23.02.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 6 g personal as well as surety bonds to hief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistr In the event of there being any FIR t shall be open to the respondent to seeking cancellation of bail. It is made clear that any observation of deciding the present petition and t the case. Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes
   nds to the satisfaction of the learned agistrate concerned. y FIR/complaint lodged against the dent to seek redressal by filing an vation made herein above is only for and the same shall have no bearing een allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
rned t the g an y for aring n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.24 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.