CRM-M-65790- IN THE H (124) KULDEEP SING STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. S MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 483 of Bh for grant of regul registered under S Substances Act, 19 Fazilka. His prev No.11559-2025 w 18.07.2025 respec 2. As p performing patroll the side of Village -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH
SINGH Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS A.S. Khosa, Advocate for the pet Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant one is the third petition pr of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh regular bail in case arising out of nder Sections 18 and 29 of the Nar Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS”) at Polic previous petitions bearing CRM-M were dismissed by this Court vid respectively. As per the allegations, on 14.03 patrolling duty, when the present pet Village Ramkot carrying a black colo JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-65790-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.03.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA
the petitioner preferred by the petitioner under a Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) ut of FIR No.16 dated 14.03.2024 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic t Police Station Khui Khera, District M No.31584-2024 and CRM-M rt vide orders dated 31.08.2024 and 14.03.2024, a Police party was nt petitioner was seen coming from k colour bag. On suspicion, he was M) 2026 oner
dent
nder SS”) 2024 ropic strict M d was from was AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.19 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-65790- apprehended and Grams of opium, the spot. During received from on completed. 3. It is a falsely implicated The mandatory pr clean antecedents considerable time been examined so custody anymore. move bail afresh. rights guaranteed and his medical co that the petition de 4. Per c petition being a su dismissed by pass serious and speci attracted in this ca extended benefit recovered from him be allowed. -2025 (O&M) 2 d and on search of the bag carried by , was effected from him. The peti During interrogation, he disclosed t om one Ramesh Bishnoi @ Kalu. It is argued by learned counsel for t licated in this case. A false recovery tory provisions of the NDPS act were edents. He is in custody since 18.0 e time to conclude as only 01 out of ned so far. No useful purpose would more. Each day spent by him in custo fresh. His prolonged detention mili nteed by the Constitution of India. ical condition is not good most of the tion deserves to be allowed. Per contra, learned State counsel g a successive one is not maintainabl y passing a detailed order. The allega specific in nature. The rigors of S this case. There are chances of his c nefit of bail. The commercial quan om him. It is, therefore, argued that t ied by him, recovery of 03 KG 500 he petitioner was formally arrested at osed that the said contraband was Kalu. Investigation now stands l for the petitioner that he has been covery has been planted upon him. ct were not complied with. He has 18.03.2024. The trial will take ut of 13 prosecution witnesses, has ould be served by detaining him in n custody gives him a new ground to n militates against his fundamental He is a patient of Hepatitis – C of the times. It is, therefore, argued unsel has argued that the present tainable as his previous petition was allegations against the petitioner are rs of Section 37 of NDPS Act are f his committing similar offences, if l quantity of contraband had been that the petition does not deserve to 500 ed at was tands been . has e has m in nd to ental C gued esent was r are t are es, if been ve to AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.19 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-65790- 5. This C for the parties at co 6. The p quantity of contrab allegations agains subject offences b this petition being accused has a righ the duty of the Co consider that any the one taken in th be noted that ever action for filing a kept in custody fo even if it is filed r prosecution must effected from the 18.03.2024. The t proposition of law of incarceration is Reliance in this re Apex Court in Mo OnLine SC 352, in trial cannot be -2025 (O&M) 3 This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. The petitioner was apprehended by th contraband had been recovered from h against him prima facie make out a nces by the petitioner. So far as the being successive one is concerned, a right to move successive bail applic the Court, while entertaining such a s t any fresh ground which persuade it n in the earlier application is made ou t every day spent by an accused in cu iling a bail application under certain ody for indefinite period and the bail filed repeatedly. The denial of bail c must press for early completion of th m the petitioner. He has clean antece The trial will take considerable time 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 ubmissions made by learned counsel d by the police party and commercial from his conscious possession. The out a case for commission of the as the question of maintainability of rned, it may be mentioned that, an plication for grant of bail and it is ch a subsequent bail application, to ade it to take a view different from ade out or not. It is also required to in custody provides a new cause of ertain circumstances. He cannot be e bail application can be considered bail comes with a condition that the n of the trial. No recovery has been antecedents. He is in custody since e time to conclude. 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 unsel rcial The f the ty of t, an it is n, to from ed to se of ot be ered t the been since ttled eriod Act. ble CC elay iven AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.19 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-65790- 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. 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 -2025 (O&M) 4 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 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 which is applicable to offence under are 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 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 nder iving tified than tate on 33, used nged teed ional 7 of of ently ction r bail early ourt n of f her ntil ation AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.19 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-65790- 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 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 27 da only 01 out of 1 continued detentio There is nothing o participate in the t -2025 (O&M) 5 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.
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 days. The trial is not likely to b t of 13 prosecution witnesses have etention of the petitioner is not likely hing on record to show that if released n the trial or will abscond. 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 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, 11 ly to be concluded in near future as ve been examined so far. The likely to serve any fruitful purpose. leased on bail, the petitioner will not hich ents, ction ial is 1973 an rcial nefit years LP gal 72 esent t the 11 re as The pose. ll not AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.19 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-65790- 12. In vie case is made out f petition is allowed his furnishing pers trial Court/Chief J 13. In th conditions, the re seeking cancellatio 14. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 15. Since any, is rendered in 18.03.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 6 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 eventuality of breach of the respondent-State shall be at lib cellation of the bail. It is, however, clarified that the obse 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
  
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. h of any of the aforementioned at liberty to move an application 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
hat a , the ct to rned oned ation l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.19 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.