CRM-M-4683-20 IN THE H (218) PARJVAL KUM STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. S MANISHA BATR 1. The 483 of Bharatiya N of regular bail in under Section 22 o (for short “NDPS Phagwara, Tehsil P 2. As pe duty, a youth was white colour plas back. On suspic disclosed his nam checking the plas 2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH KUMAR @ SAHIL Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Sushant Kohli, Advocate for the p Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been filed atiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in case arising out of FIR No.010 n 22 of the Naroctic Drugs and Psych DPS”) (Section 21 of NDPS added la ehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala. As per the allegations, on 11.09.2021 h was found going towards Bhularai C r plastic bag. On noticing the Polic suspicion being aroused, he was a is name as Parjval Kumar @ Sahil i. e plastic bag, 928 capsules of Proxy JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-4683-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.02.2026 ... Petitioner
...Respondent
ANISHA BATRA
or the petitioner by the petitioner under Section , 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant 0106 dated 11.09.2021 registered Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ded later on) at Police Station Sadar hala. 9.2021, while performing patrolling larai Chowk on foot while carrying a Police officials, he at once turned was apprehended. On asking, he ahil i.e. the present petitioner. On Proxywel Spas and 600 tablets of 2026 ction grant tered 1985 adar lling ing a rned , he On ts of AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.12 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-4683-20 Aprasafe were rec possession. The found to be of co the petitioner is fa 3. It is a falsely implicated There are no chan 11 prosecution wi further detention prolonged incarce these broad submi 4. Status on record the cust view the gravity o that rigors of Sect to be extended ben 5. This C for both the parties 6. The p 13 days. Trial wi been examined so account of delay i the light of Sectio 2025 (O&M) 2 ere recovered from the bag of the pet The petitioner was formally arrested of commercial quantity. Investiga r is facing trial for the commission of It is argued by learned counsel for t licated in this case. A false recovery o chances of conclusion of trial in the ion witnesses, have been examined. H ntion would not serve any useful p ncarceration also, he is entitled to be e submissions, it is urged that the petitio Status report already stands filed. Le e custody certificate of the petitioner a avity of the allegations as levelled aga f Section 37 of NDPS are attracted in ed benefit of bail. This Court has heard the rival submis parties at considerable length. The petitioner is in custody for a peri rial will obviously take time to conclu ned so far. It is well settled propositio elay in trial and long period of incarc Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Relianc the petitioner which were taken into rrested. The recovered drugs were stigation now stands completed and ion of aforementioned offence. l for the petitioner that he has been covery has been planted upon him. in the near future as only 02 out of ned. He has clean antecedents. His seful purpose. On account of his to be extended benefit of bail. With petition deserve to be allowed. d. Learned State counsel has placed ioner and has argued that keeping in against the petitioner and the fact ted in this case, he does not deserve ubmissions made by learned counsel a period of 02 years, 07 months and conclude as only 02 witnesses have position of law that grant of bail on incarceration is to be considered in eliance in this regard can be placed into were and been . ut of His f his With laced ng in fact serve unsel s and have il on ed in ced AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.12 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-4683-20 upon the observa Hussain v. State held that grant of fettered under Sec A of Cr.P.C. whic that jails are overc appalling. The da likely to be harde Manmandal and (Criminal) No.865 of Odisha, 2023 L extended benefit o period by observ precious fundamen in such a situatio embargo contained 7. Relia Chhattishgarh & pronounced verdic 37 of NDPS Act w as it comes with completion of tria held that appella 2025 (O&M) 3 bservations made by Hon’ble Apex tate (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC On ant of bail on account of undue delay er Section 37 of the NDPS Act, given . which is applicable to offence under e overcrowded and their living condit he danger of unjustified imprisonm hardened rather than reformed. Relia and Another v. State of West Be o.8656 of 2023 decided on 14.09.20 023 LiveLaw (SC) 533, wherein the nefit of bail to the accused who had bserving that prolonged incarceratio damental right guaranteed under Arti ituation, the constitutional principles ntained under Section 37 of the NDPS 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 prosecut of trial. In the above-mentioned case ppellant who was being prosecuted pex Court in Mohd. Muslim @ OnLine SC 352, wherein it was e delay in trial cannot be said to be given the imperative of Section 436- under the Act. It was also observed conditions are, more often than not, isonment is that inmates are more . Reliance can also be placed upon t Bengal, Special Leave Petition 9.2023 and Rabi Prakash v. State ein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had o had been incarcerated for a long ceration militated against the most er Article 21 of the Constitution and nciples must override the statutory NDPS Act.
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 to be - rved not, more upon ion ate t had long most and utory of ently ction r bail early ourt n of AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.12 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-4683-20 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 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 13 da 2025 (O&M) 4 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.
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 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, 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 ation for a period of 02 years, 07 ly to be concluded in near future as f her ntil ation hich ents, ction ial is 1973 an rcial nefit years LP gal 72 esent t the 07 re as AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.12 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-4683-20 only 02 prosecuti clean antecedents. any fruitful purpos 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 15. Since any, is rendered in 11.02.2026 Amit Sharma


2025 (O&M) 5 secution witnesses have been examin dents. The continued detention of the 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 Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes 
 

examined so far. The petitioner has of the petitioner is not likely to serve cord 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 al in any manner.
allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
r has serve bail, hat a , the ct to rned t the g an l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.12 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.