CRM-M-9105 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 230 Vinod Kumar State of Haryana CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. petitioner under Section grant of regular bail in case bearing under Sections 22(c) Substances Act, 1985 District Panipat. dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 2. injections of 21.05.2023. Since then he is in custody and facing trial. 3. petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The trial is not progressing as out of 20 prosecution witnesses, only 01 witness has been examined so far. Hence, the conclusion of trial would t 9105-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Vinod Kumar Versus Haryana CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Sahil Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Sheenu Sura, DAG, Haryana. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) The instant one is the second petition oner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 465 dated 21.05.2023 under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) District Panipat. The first petition, bearing number dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 25.07.2024. As per the allegations, the petitioner was apprehended with 50 injections of Avil (Pheniramine) and 50 injections of 21.05.2023. Since then he is in custody and facing trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The trial is not progressing as out of 20 prosecution witnesses, only 01 witness has been examined so far. Hence, the conclusion of trial would take a long time. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-9105-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.07.2025 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Sahil Choudhary, Advocate Mrs. Sheenu Sura, DAG, Haryana. The instant one is the second petition, which has been filed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking FIR No. 465 dated 21.05.2023, registered Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Samalkha, The first petition, bearing number CRM-M-20199-2024, was 25.07.2024. As per the allegations, the petitioner was apprehended with 50 ) and 50 injections of Buprnorphine 21.05.2023. Since then he is in custody and facing trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The trial is not progressing as out of 20 prosecution witnesses, only 01 witness has been examined so far. ake a long time. The petitioner is in -1- 2025 (O&M) 07.07.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent filed by the seeking , registered Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic at Police Station Samalkha, , was As per the allegations, the petitioner was apprehended with 50 Buprnorphine on Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The trial is not progressing as out of 20 prosecution witnesses, only 01 witness has been examined so far. The petitioner is in MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.09 09:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-9105 custody since 21.05.2023 i.e. for the last more than 02 years. In view of substantial delay in trial, the petitioner is entitled to get benefit of bail and the rigors under Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be dispensed w purpose would be served by keeping urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. submitted therein and learned opposed the prayer of the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of bail as he was nabbed at the spot and commercial quantity of the contraband was effected from him. Hence, it is urged that petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. and have also gone through the record carefully. 6. 50 injections of effected from him. A perusal of the status report shows that out prosecution witnesses, only 01 witness has been examined so far, which means that the trial is substantially delayed and same to conclude in near future Hon’ble Supreme Court in (SC) 533 has held that t the most precious Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act 9105-2025 (O&M) custody since 21.05.2023 i.e. for the last more than 02 years. In view of substantial delay in trial, the petitioner is entitled to get benefit of bail and the rigors under Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be dispensed w purpose would be served by keeping him urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. Status report has been filed by the respondent submitted therein and learned Deputy Advocate Gen opposed the prayer of the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of bail as he was nabbed at the spot and commercial quantity of the contraband was effected from him. Hence, it is urged that on is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the record carefully. The petitioner was apprehended on 21.05.2023 and recovery of 50 injections of Avil (Pheniramine) and effected from him. A perusal of the status report shows that out prosecution witnesses, only 01 witness has been examined so far, which means that the trial is substantially delayed and same to conclude in near future. The petitioner is in long incarceration. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rabi Prakash vs. State of Odisha : 2023 Live Law has held that the prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act custody since 21.05.2023 i.e. for the last more than 02 years. In view of substantial delay in trial, the petitioner is entitled to get benefit of bail and the rigors under Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be dispensed with as no useful him in custody anymore. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. It is Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has opposed the prayer of the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of bail as he was nabbed at the spot and commercial quantity of the contraband was effected from him. Hence, it is urged that I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the record carefully. The petitioner was apprehended on 21.05.2023 and recovery of 50 injections of Buprnorphine effected from him. A perusal of the status report shows that out of 20 prosecution witnesses, only 01 witness has been examined so far, which means that the trial is substantially delayed and there is no likelihood of the . The petitioner is in long incarceration. Rabi Prakash vs. State of Odisha : 2023 Live Law he prolonged incarceration, generally militates against fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. Similar -2- custody since 21.05.2023 i.e. for the last more than 02 years. In view of substantial delay in trial, the petitioner is entitled to get benefit of bail and the useful in custody anymore. It is, therefore, State. It is eral, Haryana has opposed the prayer of the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of bail as he was nabbed at the spot and commercial quantity of the contraband was effected from him. Hence, it is urged that the I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length The petitioner was apprehended on 21.05.2023 and recovery of was of 20 prosecution witnesses, only 01 witness has been examined so far, which there is no likelihood of the . The petitioner is in long incarceration. Rabi Prakash vs. State of Odisha : 2023 Live Law he prolonged incarceration, generally militates against fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the . Similar MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.09 09:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-9105 view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court State of Madhya Pradesh : 2024 (4) RCR (Criminal) 172 be placed upon AIR(SC) 1648 2023 AIR(SC) 1648 granting concession o quantity of the contraband was allegedly recovered, has held that g on the ground of undue delay in trial 37 of the Satender Kumar Antil v 2022(10) SCC 51 Supreme Court. Reliance can also be placed upon Bhupender Singh v 706, wherein a Division Bench of this Court, respect to achieving balance between right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the rigor Section 37 of the from claiming bail invoking parameters of Article 21 of the Constitution of India de-hors present case, apparently and evidently, the trial is substantially delayed. Therefore, keeping in view the aforementioned facts and circumstances and also the ratio of law as laid down in the aforecited authorities, the considered opinion that petitioner in custody anymore. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his 9105-2025 (O&M) view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court State of Madhya Pradesh : 2024 (4) RCR (Criminal) 172 be placed upon Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) AIR(SC) 1648 2023 AIR(SC) 1648, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court, while granting concession of regular bail to an accused, from whom commercial quantity of the contraband was allegedly recovered, has held that g the ground of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reference can also be made Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022(10) SCC 51, wherein similar observations were made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Reliance can also be placed upon Bhupender Singh vs. Narcotic Control Bureau : (2022) 2 RCR (Criminal) , wherein a Division Bench of this Court, respect to achieving balance between right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the rigor Section 37 of the NDPS Act, has held that convict/accused is not precluded from claiming bail invoking parameters of Article 21 of the Constitution of hors the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the ase, apparently and evidently, the trial is substantially delayed. Therefore, keeping in view the aforementioned facts and circumstances and also the ratio of law as laid down in the aforecited authorities, the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody anymore. Accordingly, the present petition The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh : 2024 (4) RCR (Criminal) 172. Reliance can also Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) : 2023 , wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court, while f regular bail to an accused, from whom commercial quantity of the contraband was allegedly recovered, has held that grant of bail cannot be said to be fettered by Section . Reference can also be made to the authority cited as s. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, wherein similar observations were made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Reliance can also be placed upon the authority cited as s. Narcotic Control Bureau : (2022) 2 RCR (Criminal) , wherein a Division Bench of this Court, after considering issue with respect to achieving balance between right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the rigors enumerated under held that convict/accused is not precluded from claiming bail invoking parameters of Article 21 of the Constitution of the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In the ase, apparently and evidently, the trial is substantially delayed. Therefore, keeping in view the aforementioned facts and circumstances and also the ratio of law as laid down in the aforecited authorities, this Court is of useful purpose would be served by keeping the Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his -3- Ankur Chaudhary vs. . Reliance can also 2023 , wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court, while f regular bail to an accused, from whom commercial rant of bail cannot be said to be fettered by Section to the authority cited as s. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, wherein similar observations were made by the Hon’ble the authority cited as s. Narcotic Control Bureau : (2022) 2 RCR (Criminal) after considering issue with respect to achieving balance between right to speedy trial guaranteed under s enumerated under held that convict/accused is not precluded from claiming bail invoking parameters of Article 21 of the Constitution of In the ase, apparently and evidently, the trial is substantially delayed. Therefore, keeping in view the aforementioned facts and circumstances and this Court is of useful purpose would be served by keeping the is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.09 09:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-9105 furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned. for cancellation of bail in case the subsequent case. 7. for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 07.07.2025 Waseem Ansari Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 9105-2025 (O&M) furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned. However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail in case the petitioner subsequent case. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is onl for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 07.07.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply petitioner is found involved in any other It is made clear that any observation made herein above is onl for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No -4- trial Court/Duty However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply is found involved in any other It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.09 09:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document