CRM-M-64243- IN THE H (121) MAJOR SINGH STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. S MANISHA BATR 1. The i Section 483 of Bh for grant of regul registered under S Substances Act (f Taran on the alleg co-accused Gurjan was effected from the petitioner for 20.02.2025. -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH NGH Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Lupil Gupta, Advocate for the pe Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab **** BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant one is the second petition of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh regular bail in case arising out of F nder Sections 21(C) and 29 of the Na Act (for short “NDPS”) at Police Sta e allegations that on 07.11.2023, he w Gurjant and recovery of commercial q from their conscious possession. Th for grant of regular bail had been JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-64243-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.03.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA the petitioner petition filed by the petitioner under a Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) ut of FIR No.176 dated 07.11.2023 he Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic ce Station Sadar Patti, District Tarn , he was apprehended alongwith the rcial quantity of 705 grams of heroin n. The previous petition, as filed by d been dismissed by this Court on M) 2026 oner dent nder ) 2023 ropic Tarn h the eroin d by rt on AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.11 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-64243- 2. It is a custody since lon militates against Constitution of In dismissal of his witness has been conclusion of trial will not serve an furnished him a g argued that the pet 3. Per co petition had been substantive or dra maintainable. It i grave in nature. T As such it is stress 4. This C for the parties at co 5. The p have been found i He is in custody si future are bleak. application for gra -2025 (O&M) 2 It is argued by learned counsel for the ce long. His antecedents are clean. ainst his fundamental right guarant of India. The trial has not progr s previous petition on 20.02.202 been examined so far, that too partia of trial in the near future. The contin rve any useful purpose. Each day im a ground to move bail afresh for the petition deserves to be allowed. Per contra, learned State counsel has been dismissed by passing a det or drastic change in the circumstance e. It is further argued that the allegat ure. The rigors of Section 37 of NDPS stressed that the petition does not des This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. The petitioner alongwith the co-accus ound in conscious possession of comm tody since 10.11.2023. The chances of leak. It is well-settled law that the for grant of bail, has to keep certain fa for the petitioner that he has been in clean. His prolonged incarceration uaranteed under Article 21 of the progressed at all since even after 02.2025 since only 01 prosecution partially. There are no chances of continued detention of the petitioner day spent by him in custody has h for seeking bail. It is, therefore, el has argued that since the previous a detailed order and there is no stances, therefore, the petition is not allegations against the petitioner are NDPS Act are attracted in this case. ot deserve to be allowed. ubmissions made by learned counsel accused Gurjant Singh is alleged to commercial quantity of contraband. nces of conclusion of trial in the near the Court, while considering an tain factors in mind such as whether en in ation f the after ution es of ioner has fore, ious s no s not r are case. unsel ed to and. near g an ether AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.11 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-64243- there is a prima fa committed the o likelihood of the accusation, severit the accused absc apprehension of th the period of inc deciding whether The Hon’ble Ape cannot be kept i application can be has also been held action for filing a a part of the broad to balance the righ system. It is well s in trial and long pe 37 of the NDPS A made by Hon’ble Delhi), 2023 SCC account of undue the NDPS Act, g applicable to off overcrowded and t -2025 (O&M) 3 ima facie case or reasonable ground t the offence, circumstances which a of the offence being repeated, the severity of the punishment in the even d absconding or fleeing if release n of the witnesses being threatened, et of incarceration is also a relevant f ether bail should be granted to an acc e Apex Court has observed in a cat kept in custody for an indefinite p can be considered on its own merits e n held that every day spent in custod ling a bail application under certain ci broader approach emphasizing that la he rights of the accused with the requi well settled proposition of law that gr ong period of incarceration is to be co PS Act. Reliance in this regard can be ’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Muslim SCC OnLine SC 352, wherein it w ndue delay in trial cannot be said to b Act, given the imperative of Section to offence under the Act. It was d and their living conditions are, more ound to believe that the accused has hich are peculiar to the accused, d, the nature and gravity of the e event of conviction, the danger of released on bail, and reasonable ned, etc. However, at the same time, vant factor to be considered while an accused charged with an offence. a catena of cases that an accused inite period of time, and the bail erits even if it is filed repeatedly. It custody can provide a new cause of rtain circumstances. This principle is that law prefers bail over jail, aiming requirements of the criminal justice that grant of bail on account of delay be considered in the light of Section can be placed upon the observations slim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of in it was held that grant of bail on id to be fettered under Section 37 of Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. which is was also observed that jails are , more often than not, appalling. The has used, the er of able time, hile ence. used bail ly. It se of le is ming stice elay ction tions of il on 37 of ch is are . The AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.11 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-64243- danger of unjusti hardened rather th and Another v. No.8656 of 2023 2023 LiveLaw (S benefit of bail to observing that pr fundamental righ situation, the con contained under Se 6. Relia Chhattishgarh & pronounced verdic 37 of NDPS Act w as it comes with completion of tria held that appella commercial quant incarceration for a 7. Simil v. Central Bureau and inordinate del considered the cor -2025 (O&M) 4 unjustified imprisonment is that inm ther than reformed. Reliance can also v. State of West Bengal, Specia 023 decided on 14.09.2023 and Rab w (SC) 533, wherein the Hon’ble ail to the accused who had been inca hat prolonged incarceration militate l right guaranteed under Article 21 of e constitutional principles must ov nder Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 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 at inmates are more likely to be n also be placed upon Manmandal pecial Leave Petition (Criminal) Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, n’ble Supreme Court had extended n incarcerated for a long period by ilitated against the most precious 21 of the Constitution and in such a st override the statutory embargo 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, o be dal al) ha, nded d by cious ch a argo of ently ction r bail early ourt n of f her ntil ation hich ents, AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.11 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-64243- including Section 436A (which requ not concluded wit would apply. 8. In th Crminal Appeal quantity of narcoti of bail to the accus and 08 months of t 9. Simil No.15699-2025 tit and in the case of of 2025. 10. On an case in the light o petitioner has suff months, the trial is prosecution witne the petitioner is n record to show tha trial or will abscon -2025 (O&M) 5 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 fo trial is not likely to be concluded in n witnesses have been examined so fa er is not likely to serve any fruitful ow that if released on bail, the petitio abscond. 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 les of law, it transpires that the tion for a period of 02 years and 04 d in near future as only 01 out of 12 so far. The continued detention of ruitful purpose; there is nothing on petitioner will not participate in the ction ial is 1973 an rcial nefit years LP gal 72 esent t the d 04 of 12 n of g on n the AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.11 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-64243- 11. In vie case is made out f petition is allowed his furnishing pers trial Court/Chief J 12. In the petitioner, it shall application seekin 13. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 14. Since any, is rendered in 11.03.2026 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 event of there being any FIR t shall be open to the respondent-State eeking 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 ince the main petition has been all ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable:- 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. allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE oned:- Yes/No Yes/No hat a , the ct to rned t the g an l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.11 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.