CRM-M-69177- IN THE H (235) VIJAY KUMAR STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. S MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 483 of Bh bail in case arising 22 of Narcotic D “NDPS”) at Polic dismissed on 11.11 23.07.2025. 2. As p apprehended with recovered intoxic Investigation stand of aforementioned -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH MAR @ MINTU Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for th Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant one is the third petition of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh arising out of FIR No.93 dated 04.08. cotic Drugs and Psychotropic Subs Police Station Bhogpur, District Jala n 11.11.2024 and the second petition w As per the allegations, on 04.0 d with 35 tablets of Alprazolam and intoxicating tablets were taken into n stands concluded and the petitioner tioned offences. His first petition was JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-69177-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.02.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA
for the petitioner etition filed by the petitioner under a Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular 04.08.2022 registered under Section Substances Act, 1985 (for short ict Jalandhar. His first petition was ition was dismissed as withdrawn on 04.08.2022, the petitioner was nd 65 tablets of Etizolam. The n into possession by the Police. tioner is facing trial for commission on was dismissed on the ground that M) 2026 oner
dent
nder gular ction short was n on was The lice. ssion that AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.18 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-69177- he had absented petitioner is in cus 3. It is a maintainable as ea him seeking conce witness has been e useful purpose. H these broad submi 4. Notic 5. Learn ready to argue the petitioner and has who was earlier Commercial quant The rigors of Sect petition had been substantive chang petition does not 6. This C for both the parties 7. The absented himself a for a period of 01 -2025 (O&M) 2 ented himself and was declared as p in custody continuously w.e.f. 04.05.2 It is argued by learned counsel for th e as each day spent by him in custody concession of bail. The trial has no been examined so far. His further inca ose. He is not involved in any other submissions, it is urged that the petitio Notice of motion. Learned State counsel has advance ue the matter. He has placed on rec nd has submitted that there are chanc arlier declared proclaimed offender, l quantity of the contraband had been f Section 37 of NDPS Act are attrac been dismissed by passing a det change in the circumstances. It is s not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submis parties at considerable length. The petitioner had been extended self and was declared a proclaimed o 1 year, 10 months and 27 days. d as proclaimed person. Now the 4.05.2024. for the petitioner that the petition is stody has furnished a new ground to has not progressed much as only 01 er incarceration would not serve any other case of similar nature. With petition deserves to be allowed. vance notice of the petition and is on record custody certificate of the chances of petitioner’s absconding, ender, if extended benefit of bail. been recovered from the petitioner. attracted in this case. His previous a detailed order and there is no It is, therefore, stressed that the ubmissions made by learned counsel nded benefit of regular bail. He imed offender. Now he is in custody The trial will take considerable the on is nd to ly 01 any With d is f the ding, bail. oner. ious s no t the unsel He tody rable AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.18 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-69177- time to conclude a so far. It is well custody for an in considered on its militates against th 21 of the Const circumstances of t detention of the incarceration shou petition is allowed his furnishing pers trial Court/Chief J 8. In the petitioner, it shall application seekin 9. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 10. Since any, is rendered in 17.02.2026 Amit Sharma

-2025 (O&M) 3 clude as only 01 out of 09 prosecution s well settled proposition of law that an indefinite period of time and th on its own merits. The prolonged ainst the most precious fundamental r Constitution of India. On analy es of the case, this Court is of the con f the petitioner will not be of any n should not be a replica of post-conv llowed and the petitioner is ordered 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-State seeking cancellation of bail. It is, however, clarified that the obse d as an expression of opinion of this C t influence the outcome of the trial in a Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes 
 

cution witnesses has been examined that an accused cannot be kept in and the bail application has to be longed detention of the petitioner ental rights guaranteed under Article analyzing the peculiar facts and he considered opinion that continued of any fruitful purpose. Pre-trial conviction sentencing, as such the ered to be released on bail subject to nds to the satisfaction of the learned agistrate concerned. y FIR/complaint lodged against the State to seek redressal by filing an e observations made above shall not this Court on the merits of the case ial in any manner.
allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
ined pt in o be ioner rticle and nued trial h the ct to rned t the g an l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.18 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.