CRM-M-71087- IN THE H (224) BALJIT SINGH STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. S MANISHA BATR 1. The 483 of Bharatiya case arising out of 25 and 29 of Narc “NDPS”) at Police 2. As p information, accus petitioner were ap was recovered from the Police. They -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH NGH @ ASHU Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advoc Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been filed b ratiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 202 out of FIR No.08 dated 10.02.2024 re Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Su Police Station Jhabal, District Tarn Ta As per the allegations, on 10.02.20 accused Bikramjeet Singh @ Vicky, ere apprehended and 3 KG and 900 ed from their conscious possession, wh They were formally arrested. Invest JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-71087-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.02.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA
Advocate for the petitioner filed by the petitioner under Section ta, 2023 for grant of regular bail in 024 registered under Sections 21(C), pic Substances Act, 1985 (for short arn Taran. .2024, on the basis of a secret icky, Sandeep Singh and the present d 900 Grams of contraband heroin, ion, which was taken into custody by Investigation now stands completed M) 2026 oner
dent
ction in 1(C), short ecret esent , y by leted AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.19 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-71087- and the petitioner aforementioned of 3. It is a falsely implicated is in custody since as no prosecution case cannot be con co-accused has alr to be extended the the petition deserv 4. Status learned State coun in nature. The r There are chance benefit of bail. It allowed. 5. This C for both the parties 6. The p found in conscio allegations make against him. The r -2025 (O&M) 2 tioner alongwith the co-accused is faci ned offences. It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case. A false recovery h since 10.02.2024. The trial will take cution witness has been examined so be considered to be a reason for denyi has already been extended benefit of b ed the same benefit. With these broa deserves to be allowed. Status report and custody certificate h e counsel that allegations levelled aga The rigors of Section 37 of NDPS chances of petitioner’s committing ail. It is, therefore, stressed that the p This Court has heard the rival submis parties at considerable length. The petitioner alongwith the co-acc onscious possession of commercia make out a prima facie case for co . The rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Ac is facing trial for commission of the l for the petitioner that he has been very has been planted upon him. He ll take considerable time to conclude ed so far. His involvement in other r denying benefit of bail to him. The it of bail. On parity, he too deserves e broad submissions, it is urged that icate have been filed. It is argued by ed against the petitioner are serious DPS Act are attracted in this case. tting similar offences, if extended t the petition does not deserve to be ubmissions made by learned counsel accused is alleged to have been ercial quantity of heroin. The for commission of subject offences PS Act are also attracted. However, f the been . He lude other The erves that d by rious case. nded to be unsel been The nces ever, AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.19 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-71087- he is in custody fo has been examine conclusion of the proposition of law of incarceration is Reliance in this re Apex Court in Mo OnLine SC 352, in trial cannot be the imperative of S the Act. It was conditions are, m imprisonment is reformed. Relianc of West Bengal, S 14.09.2023 and R wherein the Hon’b who had been in incarceration milit under Article 21 o principles must ov the NDPS Act. -2025 (O&M) 3 ody for a period of two years. Not eve amined so far and there is nothing on of the trial is attributable to the p of law that grant of bail on account of tion is to be considered in the light of this regard can be placed upon the o n Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. Sta 52, wherein it was held that grant of ot be said to be fettered under Sectio ve of Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. which was also observed that jails are o are, more often than not, appalling 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court had extended 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 ot even a single prosecution witness ing on record to show that delay in the petitioner. It is well settled unt of delay in trial and long period ight of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. the observations made by Hon’ble . State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC ant of bail on account of undue delay Section 37 of the NDPS Act, given which is applicable to offence under re overcrowded and their living palling. 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 eriod by observing that prolonged ecious fundamental right guaranteed such a situation, the constitutional argo contained under Section 37 of tness ay in ttled od Act. ble CC elay iven nder iving tified than tate on 33, used nged teed ional 7 of AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.19 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-71087- 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.
9. In th Crminal Appeal quantity of narcoti of bail to the accus and 08 months of t -2025 (O&M) 4 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 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.
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, expressed the opinion that Section to be enlarged on bail if the trial is the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan regard to recovery of commercial Supreme Court accorded the benefit incarceration for a period of 02 years of ently ction r bail early ourt n of f her ntil ation hich ents, ction ial is 1973 an rcial nefit years AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.19 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-71087- 10. CRM-M-71087- 10. Simil No.15699-2025 tit and in the case of of 2025.
11. On an case in the light o petitioner has suff is not likely to be examined so far. T any fruitful purpo the petitioner will 12. In vie case is made out f petition is allowed his furnishing pers trial Court/Chief J 13. In the petitioner, it shall application seekin 14. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ -2025 (O&M) 5 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 as suffered prolonged incarceration for to be concluded in near future as no far. The continued detention of the p purpose; there is nothing on record to r will not participate in the trial or wil In view of the above discussion, this e out for grant of bail to the petitioner llowed and the petitioner is ordered to 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 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 ion for a period of 02 years, the trial no prosecution witness has been f the petitioner is not likely to serve ord to show that if released on bail, 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 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.
LP gal 72 esent t the trial been serve bail, hat a , the ct to rned t the g an l not case AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.19 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-71087- 15. Since any, is rendered in 18.02.2026 Amit Sharma


-2025 (O&M) 6 Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes 
 

allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.19 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.