CRM-M-9465-2025 310 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Davinder Singh @ Gopi State of Punjab CORAM: Present:- SUMEET GOEL 1. Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 petitioner in case bearing FIR No punishable under Section Substances Act, 1985 District Hoshiarpur. 2. accused of being involved in of intoxicant substance Rs.88,000/- drug money along with polythene envelopes 3. custody since counsel has further submitted that the petitioner was directed to be released on interim bail on 11.06.2025 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Davinder Singh @ Gopi versus Punjab HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. J.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG Punjab. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS petitioner in case bearing FIR No.61 dated 18.05.2021 punishable under Sections 21 & 22 of the Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) District Hoshiarpur. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving of intoxicant substance (heroine) allegedly recovered from drug money along with computer weighing machine and small polythene envelopes allegedly recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has custody since 18.05.2024 and is in continuous custody since then. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner was directed to be released on interim bail on 11.06.2025 on account of non IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-9465-2025 Date of decision: July 30, 2025 ….Petitioner ….Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. J.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the 18.05.2021, registered for the offences Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station Chabbewal, The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 270 grams allegedly recovered from the co-accused, and computer weighing machine and small allegedly recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in and is in continuous custody since then. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner was directed to be released on on account of non-receipt of FSL report, but he was 1 AT CHANDIGARH 2025 , 2025 Petitioner ….Respondent 483 of the Bharatiya for grant of regular bail to the ences Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Chabbewal, The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an 270 grams , and computer weighing machine and small that the petitioner is in and is in continuous custody since then. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner was directed to be released on was MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-9465-2025 unable to avail that benefit as he was has iterated that, though, the challan has been presented in the matter 11 cited prosecution witnesses, only counsel has further iterated accused (Bakshinder Kaur), whereas, an amount of Rs.88,000/ scale have been recovered from the present petition. certificate dated 2 petitioner is in custody, in the present case, only for a period of about 06 months, but the fact remains that he has been in continuous custody since the date of his arre said custody certificate reflects incarceration for a period of 06 months only for the reason that he is in the custody in another case. petitioner has further submitted th have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the liability thereof cannot be fastened prayed for. 4. that the allegations raised does not deserve the concession of the regu place on record custody certificate dated record. 5. available records of the case. 2025 unable to avail that benefit as he was in custody in another case. Learned iterated that, though, the challan has been presented in the matter prosecution witnesses, only 02 have been examined till date. counsel has further iterated that recovery of 270 grams of Heroine is from co accused (Bakshinder Kaur), whereas, an amount of Rs.88,000/ have been recovered from the present petition. dated 28.07.2025 filed by the learned State counsel reflects that the petitioner is in custody, in the present case, only for a period of about 06 months, but the fact remains that he has been in continuous custody since the date of his arrest, i.e., 18.05.2021. Learned counsel has iterated that the said custody certificate reflects incarceration for a period of 06 months only for the reason that he is in the custody in another case. has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition that the allegations raised against the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail place on record custody certificate dated 28.07. I have heard counsel for the rival available records of the case. in custody in another case. Learned counsel iterated that, though, the challan has been presented in the matter, but out of 02 have been examined till date. Learned that recovery of 270 grams of Heroine is from co accused (Bakshinder Kaur), whereas, an amount of Rs.88,000/- and one weighing have been recovered from the present petition. Though, the custody filed by the learned State counsel reflects that the petitioner is in custody, in the present case, only for a period of about 06 months, but the fact remains that he has been in continuous custody, in the present case Learned counsel has iterated that the said custody certificate reflects incarceration for a period of 06 months only for the reason that he is in the custody in another case. Learned counsel for the at the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is delayed and upon the petitioner. Thus, regular bail is Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, lar bail. Learned State counsel seeks to 28.07.2025 in Court, which is taken on rival parties and have gone through the 2 counsel , but out of Learned that recovery of 270 grams of Heroine is from co- weighing Though, the custody filed by the learned State counsel reflects that the petitioner is in custody, in the present case, only for a period of about 06 months, case, Learned counsel has iterated that the said custody certificate reflects incarceration for a period of 06 months only for for the at the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent and Thus, regular bail is arguing he Learned State counsel seeks to 2025 in Court, which is taken on parties and have gone through the MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-9465-2025 6. was carried out and challan was presented on witnesses have been cited petitioner was released on interim bail on 11.06.2025 on account of non FSL report, but in custody in another case debatable issues 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 justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1. by the petitioner, be saddled upon the petitioner. by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than being in custody in another case continuous custody 18.05.2021, despite he being non-receipt of FSL report 6.2. passed in CRM ratio decidendi Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman 2025 The petitioner was arrested on 18.05.2021 was carried out and challan was presented on witnesses have been cited, but only 02 have petitioner was released on interim bail on 11.06.2025 on account of non FSL report, but the fact remains that he was unable to avail that benefit as he was in custody in another case. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to e issues, which 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. A perusal of the zimni orders passed by the by the petitioner, indicates that the trial is procrastinating and upon the petitioner. As per custody certificate dated by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a more than 06 months, but the same is reflected due to the petitioner being in custody in another case; thus, in actual, continuous custody, in the present case, since the date of his arrest, i.e., despite he being granted interim bail on of FSL report. This Court in a judgment titled as CRM-M-64074-2024 (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying upon the 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 18.05.2021 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 20.09.2021. Total 11 prosecution only 02 have been examined till date. The petitioner was released on interim bail on 11.06.2025 on account of non-receipt of he was unable to avail that benefit as he was The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to 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 of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. orders passed by the trial Court, brought forth indicates that the trial is procrastinating and folly thereof cannot As per custody certificate dated 28.07.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a the same is reflected due to the petitioner in actual, the petitioner has been in since the date of his arrest, i.e., interim bail on 11.06.2021 on account of This Court in a judgment titled as Kulwinder versus State of Punjab (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying upon the of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman 3 whereinafter investigation prosecution The receipt of he was unable to avail that benefit as he was The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to 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 of the petitioner absconding from the process of brought forth hereof cannot .07.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a the same is reflected due to the petitioner has been in since the date of his arrest, i.e., on account of Kulwinder versus State of Punjab (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying upon the of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-9465-2025 Antulay vs R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 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 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 held thus:- fundamental right to life and liberty, guarantee protects against the risk that evidence will be lost or memories dimmed by passage of time, thus, impairing the ability of the accused to defend himself. 2025 Antulay vs R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 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.5530-2022 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 “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 wel 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 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, guarantee 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 hearing and quick disposal are of criminal jurisprudence. The overcrowded Court of work and the resultant pressure on the prosecution and the Police, indubitably keeps the entire criminal jurisprudential mechani 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 proceed with the trial with a reasonable dispatch. The guarantee serves a threefold purpose. Firstly, it pr 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 passage of time, thus, impairing the ability of the accused to defend himself. 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), 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 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 Madhya Pradesh, 2024(4) RCR (Criminal) 172; has 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 rred 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 consequent incarceration which continues at all stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, ial, 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 early hearing and quick disposal are sine qua non of criminal jurisprudence. The 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 rs. 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 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 passage of time, thus, impairing the ability of the accused to defend himself. 4 Antulay vs R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of 494; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 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 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 Madhya Pradesh, 2024(4) RCR (Criminal) 172; has The right to a speedy and expeditious trial is not only a vital safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration; to mitigate anxiety l 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 rred 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 d 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, ial, 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 sine qua non dockets, the heavy volume of work and the resultant pressure on the prosecution and the Police, sm 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 rs. 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 otects the accused against trial imprisonment; secondly, it relieves the accused of the anxiety and public suspicion due to unresolved criminal charges and lastly, it the passage of time, thus, impairing the ability of the accused to defend himself. MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-9465-2025 Accused, presumed innocent, till proven otherwise, are subjected to psychological and physica frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his family. prosecutor and after havi for an inordinate period of time by taking refuge in rigours laid down in for the constitution of special Courts under Section 36 failed to conclude within a reasonable time, resulting in prolonged 6.3. be convicted 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 2025 It goes without saying that the consequences of pre Accused, presumed innocent, till proven otherwise, are subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of jail 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 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 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 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 under Section 36 However, this Court cannot turn Nelson’s eye 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 to a fair and expeditious trial. Prolonged incarceration, without justifiable cause, risks transforming pre imprisonment, an outcome antithetical to the principle of justice and equity. Ergo, the unequivocal inference is that where the t 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 37 Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated to convicted in 01 case/FIR pertaining to NDPS Act 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 It goes without saying that the consequences of pre-trial detention are grave. Accused, presumed innocent, till proven otherwise, are subjected to l 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 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 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, particularly where lay(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 . 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 under Section 36-A of the Act. Nelson’s eye to the protracted delays and systematic inefficiency that frustrate this legislative purpose. A Court of law bound to ensure that it does not become complicit in violation of an individual’s fundamental rights, notwithstanding anything contained in a 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 peditious trial. Prolonged incarceration, without justifiable cause, risks transforming pre-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 eated 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.” Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated to pertaining to NDPS Act. 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 5 trial detention are grave. Accused, presumed innocent, till proven otherwise, are subjected to life, usually under onerous conditions. Equally important, the burden of detention of such an accused 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 while on bail. 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 lay(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 . The legislature in its wisdom, in order to ensure speedy and timely disposal of the cases under the Act, has provided A of the Act. elays and systematic inefficiency that frustrate this legislative purpose. A Court of law bound to ensure that it does not become complicit in violation of an individual’s fundamental rights, notwithstanding anything contained in a 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 peditious trial. Prolonged incarceration, trial detention into punitive imprisonment, an outcome antithetical to the principle of justice and equity. rial 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 eated 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 Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated to 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-9465-2025 qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circu FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Calcutta High C 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM Singh v. State of Haryana Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. 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 conditions that may be Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions: 2025 the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circu 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, 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) & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822 Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. 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 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 Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to (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 t found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged 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, ; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh , decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of 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 imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions: The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or uring the trial. The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial oner 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 6 mstances 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, ; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) Akhilesh Balraj v. State of 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 the The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial oner 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, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any he petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-9465-2025 8. may be imposed by concerned or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant 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. July 30, 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 2025 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/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 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 mis application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 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 /Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 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) JUDGE 7 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 In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which /Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove shall be at Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of cellaneous MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment