CRM-M-64158- IN THE H (120) PARGAT SINGH STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. S MANISHA BATR 1. The regular bail in case Sections 15 and 29 short “NDPS”) at allegations that on conducted in the poppy husk was e petitioner had ma Singh was appreh previous petition -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH INGH Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Parteek Pandit, Advocate for the Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab **** BATRA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner is seeking indulgenc in case arising out of FIR No.239 date and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psy ) at Police Station Kartarpur, Dist on 25.10.2020, on the basis of a n the garage of uncle of the petition was effected from the same which w ad managed to escape from the spo pprehended. The petitioner had been tition filed by the petitioner had bee JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-64158-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.03.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA or the petitioner ulgence of this Court for grant of 9 dated 25.10.2020 registered under nd Psychotropic Substances Act (for r, District Jalandhar (Rural) on the is of a secret information, raid was etitioner and recovery of 20 Kg of ich was kept by the petitioner. The spot, however, co-accused Surjit d been arrested on 05.07.2024. The d been dismissed by this Court on M) 2026 oner dent of nder t (for the was g of The urjit The rt on AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.11 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-64158- 12.05.2025. Ano dismissed by this C 2. It is a of his previous pe custody for a peri progressed much purpose would be by him in custody therefore, urged t released on bail. 3. Per c substantive or dras petition and hence that even otherwis chances of his co therefore, argued t 4. This C for the parties at co 5. The p have been found custody since 05.0 are bleak. It is we -2025 (O&M) 2 Another petition filed by him on m y this Court on 25.07.2025. It is argued by learned counsel for the ous petitions, a considerable time has a period of more than 01 year and 0 much since only two witnesses have uld be served by detaining him in cust ustody has furnished a new ground to rged that due to his prolonged inca Per contra, learned State counsel or drastic change in the circumstances ence, the present petition is not ma herwise there are serious allegations ag his committing similar offences, if ex gued that the petition does not deserve This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. The petitioner alongwith the co-accu ound in conscious possession of 20 05.07.2024. The chances of conclu t is well-settled law that the Court, wh on medical grounds had also been for the petitioner that after dismissal me has elapsed. He is otherwise in r and 08 months. The trial has not s have been examined. No useful in custody anymore. Each day spent und to seek concession of bail. It is, d incarceration, he deserves to be unsel has argued that there is no tances after dismissal of his previous ot maintainable. It is further argued ions against the petitioner. There are s, if extended benefit of bail. It is, eserve to be allowed. ubmissions made by learned counsel accused Surjit Singh is alleged to 20 Kg of poppy husk. He is in conclusion of trial in the near future urt, while considering an application been issal se in s not seful spent It is, o be s no ious gued e are It is, unsel ed to is in uture ation AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.11 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-64158- for grant of bail, h prima facie case o the offence, circum offence being repe punishment in the fleeing if released threatened, etc. Ho relevant factor to b an accused charge catena of cases tha of time, and the ba filed repeatedly. provide a new c circumstances. Th law prefers bail o requirements of th that grant of bail o to be considered i regard can be pla Mohd. Muslim @ wherein it was he be said to be fetter Section 436-A of also observed that -2025 (O&M) 3 bail, has to keep certain factors in m case or reasonable ground to believe t circumstances which are peculiar to g repeated, the nature and gravity of in the event of conviction, the danger leased on bail, and reasonable appreh etc. However, at the same time, the pe tor to be considered while deciding wh charged with an offence. The Hon’ble ses that an accused cannot be kept in c the bail application can be considered edly. It has also been held that eve new cause of action for filing a b es. This principle is a part of the broad bail over jail, aiming to balance the s of the criminal justice system. It is w f bail on account of delay in trial and ered in the light of Section 37 of th be placed upon the observations mad m @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delh as held that grant of bail on account e fettered under Section 37 of the NDP A of Cr.P.C. which is applicable to ed that jails are overcrowded and the s in mind such as whether there is a lieve that the accused has committed liar to the accused, likelihood of the ity of the accusation, severity of the danger of the accused absconding or apprehension of the witnesses being the period of incarceration is also a ing whether bail should be granted to on’ble Apex Court has observed in a pt in custody for an indefinite period sidered on its own merits even if it is at every day spent in custody can g a bail application under certain e broader approach emphasizing that e the rights of the accused with the It is well settled proposition of law l and long period of incarceration is of the NDPS Act. Reliance in this s made by Hon’ble Apex Court in Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, count of undue delay in trial cannot e NDPS Act, given the imperative of ble to offence under the Act. It was nd their living conditions are, more is a itted f the f the g or eing lso a ed to in a eriod f it is can rtain that h the f law on is this in 52, nnot ve of was more AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.11 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-64158- often than not, app are more likely to upon Manmandal (Criminal) No.865 of Odisha, 2023 L extended benefit o period by observ precious fundamen in such a situatio embargo contained 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 ot, appalling. The danger of unjustified ely to be hardened rather than reforme ndal and Another v. State of West B 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 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 ustified imprisonment is that inmates eformed. Reliance can also be placed est 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 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, ates laced ion ate t had long most and utory 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-64158- 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 suf months and 04 day 02 out of 10 pros detention of the p nothing on record participate in the t -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 04 days, the trial is not likely to be co prosecution witnesses have been ex f the petitioner is not likely to serve record to show that if released on n the trial or will 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 nciples of law, it transpires that the ation for a period of 01 years, 08 be concluded in near future as only een examined so far. The continued serve any fruitful purpose; there is ed on bail, the petitioner will not ction ial is 1973 an rcial efit years LP l 72 esent t the s, 08 only nued re is l not AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.11 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-64158- 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 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 Whether reportable:- Yes/No 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 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.