CRM-M-12560-2025 (O&M) 1 213 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-12560-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.07.2025 MANPREET SINGH @ SAGAR ...PETITIONER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG Punjab. *** Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral) 1. This is the third petition filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 105 dated 24.07.2023 registered under Sections 22(c), 61 and 85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Sadar Sri Muktsar Sahib District Sri Muktsar Sahib. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.07.2023, in the area of Police Station Sadar Sri Muktsar Sahib, petitioner was found in conscious possession of 60 tablets of Etizola tablets 0.5, which he was carrying without any permit or license. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the third peti- tion seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner and the second petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 06.11.2024. The present petition has been filed in view of the ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nandlal Mon- dal @ Abhay Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No(s).12788/2023 as the petitioner has already undergone a period of almost 02 AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.07.04 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-12560-2025 (O&M) 2 years and till date the prosecution has not been able to conclude its evidence as out of total 12 PWs, only 02 has been examined so far. 4. Learned State counsel produces the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record and per contra, opposes the grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that complicity of the petitioner is duly established and further the contraband recovered in this case falls within the ambit of commercial quantity and the petitioner is also involved in one more case. However, he could not controvert the fact that petitioner has suffered incarceration of 01 year 11 months and 06 days and till date the prosecution has not been able to conclude its evidence. 5. A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Satender Ku- mar Antil v. CBI’ (2022) 10 SCC 51, with respect to prevailing conditions of undertrial prisoner in India has observed: “6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offence, be- ing charged with offences punishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and illiterate but also would include women. Thus, there is a culture of offence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of colonial India, on the part of the investigating agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a demo cracy, there can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are conceptually oppo- site to each other.” 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bars from the last 01 year 11 months and 06 days. Investigation of the case is complete. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court and trial of the case will take considerable long time to conclude as out of total 12 AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.07.04 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-12560-2025 (O&M) 3 prosecution witnesses, only 02 have been examined till date. No useful purpose shall be served by further detention of the accused/petitioner. 7. A two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nandlal Mon- dal @ Abhay Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No(s).12788/2023 released the accused on bail after completion of 18 months of custody on account of protracted trial in NDPS case involving commercial quantity of contraband. Reliance in this regard can also be placed upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Md. Aliul Islam @ Aliul Islam @ Alius Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No. 000736/2024, Debrata Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 14970-2023, Santarul Islam @ Santa Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 13169/2023, Indrajit Mondal @ Piglu Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 8512/2023, Narjul Islam @ Najbul Hoque Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 14172/2023, Subhashri Das @ Rana @ Subhoshree Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 15284/2023, Mithun Sk. & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.016598/2023, SK. Nasiruddin @ Nasird- din SK. Vs. State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.003402/2024, Indadul Shah Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 12670/2023 , Hanef Kharsani @ Hanef Sheikh Vs. Union of India, Ripon Seikh & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 16663/2023, Moidul Sarkar Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl).No. 15668/ 2023, Saniya Bibi @ Soniya Bibi Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 2354/2024, Saddam Hossain Vs. State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 15496/2023, Bijon SK @ Golam Murselim Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No. 6046/2024 and Subhas Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 8823/2019. AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.07.04 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-12560-2025 (O&M) 4 8. Further, the culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of trial and as such, no useful purpose will be served by further detention of the petitioner-accused. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 AIR SC 1648 has held that the concept of fairness enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India would trump the bar on granting bail in cases in- volving commercial quantity of contraband, as stipulated by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Speaking through Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, has opined as follows: “20. The standard to be considered therefore, is one, where the court would look at the material in a broad manner, and reas- onably see whether the accused’s guilt may be proved. The judgments of this court have, therefore, emphasized that the satisfaction which courts are expected to record, i.e., that the accused may not be guilty, is only prima facie, based on a reas- onable reading, which does not call for meticulous examina- tion of the materials collected during investigation (as held in Union of India v. Rattan Malik). Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of Section 436A which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too (ref. Satender Kumar Antil supra). Having regard to these factors the court is of the opinion that in the facts of this case, the appellant de- serves to be enlarged on bail. 21. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable. Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often than not, appalling.” (emphasis added) AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.07.04 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-12560-2025 (O&M) 5 9. In view of the ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tiwari Vs. State of UP and Anr. 2020(1) RCR (Criminal) 831 and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2012(2) SCC 382, the involvement of accused in other criminal cases cannot be the sole ground to deny him the concession of bail. 10. In view the discussion above, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the petitioner- Manpreet Singh @ Sagar is ordered to be released on regular bail during pen- dency of the trial, on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Il- laqa Magistrate/Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. 11. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be expression of an opinion by this Court on merits of the case. The learned Court below is directed to proceed with the matter on its own merits, lest it may prejudice the trial. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 04.07.2025 Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.07.04 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document