CRM-M-60528- IN THE H (228) BUTA SINGH STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. (throu Mr. R MANISHA BATR 1. The 483 of Bharatiya N of regular bail in under Section 22 o “NDPS”) at Police 2. As p apprehended by P loose intoxicant t been effected from The petitioner was -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Mr. Rajnikant Upadhyay, Advocate (through video conference) Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been filed atiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ail in case arising out of FIR No.35 n 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotr Police Station Rureke Kalan, District As per the allegations, on 04.0 d by Police party, on the basis of su icant tablets of Tramadol Hydrochlor d from his conscious possession, wh er was formally arrested. Investigation JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-60528-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 04.02.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA
cate for the petitioner Punjab by the petitioner under Section , 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant 35 dated 04.06.2023 registered ychotropic Substances Act (for short istrict Barnala. 04.06.2023, the petitioner was of suspicion and recovery of 1000 ochloride weighing 376 grams had which were taken into custody. tigation now stands completed. M) 2026 oner
dent
ction grant tered short was 1000 d tody. AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.05 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-60528- 3. It is a falsely implicated is in custody since has a permanent a benefit of bail. H involvement in ot benefit of bail to h he deserve to be re 4. Per c custody certificate petitioner are seri recovered from hi chances of his com bail. It is, therefor 5. This parties. 6. The p commercial quanti for commission o custody for a per going to be conclu have been examin on account of de in the light of Sect -2025 (O&M) 2 It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case. A false recovery h y since long. The trial will take consi nent abode. There are no chances o ail. His further detention would not s t in other cases cannot be considere ail to him, moreso, he is on bail in tha o be released on bail. Per contra, learned State counsel w tificate and status report, has argued t re serious in nature. Commercial qua om him. The antecedents of the petit is committing similar offences or absc erefore, stressed that the petition does This Court has heard the rival sub The petitioner was allegedly found to quantity of contraband. The allegation sion of subject offences against him a period of over 02 years and 08 m concluded in near future as only 4 ou xamined so far. It is well settled propo of delay in trial and long period of inc of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Relian l for the petitioner that he has been very has been planted upon him. He e considerable time to conclude. He nces of his absconding, if extended d not serve any useful purpose. His sidered to be a reason for denying l in that case. It is, thus, argued that nsel while placing reliance on the gued that the allegations against the quantity of contraband had been e petitioner are not clean. There are or absconding, if extended benefit of n does not deserve to be allowed. al submissions made by both the und to be in conscious possession of egations prima facie make out a case st him. However, he has been in 08 months. Trial is obviously not ly 4 out of 11 prosecution witnesses proposition of law that grant of bail of incarceration is to be considered Reliance in this regard can be placed been . He . He nded His ying that the t the been e are fit of the on of case n in not esses f bail ered laced AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.05 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-60528- 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 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 India held that ap -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 prosecuti of trial. In the above-mentioned case t hat appellant who was being prosecu 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 case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of rosecuted 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 rt of n of AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.05 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-60528- commercial quant incarceration for a 8. Simil v. Central Bureau and inordinate de India, which con several enactment opinion that Sectio on bail if the tria Procedure Code, 1 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 suff months, the trial is -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 ate delay engaged the attention of th h considered the correct approach t ctments, including Section 37 NDPS Section 436A (which requires inter a he trial is not concluded within speci ode, 1973 would apply.
n 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 incarc ths of the accused.
imilar 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 was entitled for bail in view of her n the case of Satender Kumar Antil 0 SCC 51 prolonged incarceration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of oach towards bail, with respect to DPS Act. The court expressed the inter alia the accused to be enlarged specified periods) of the Criminal 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 tion for a period of 02 years and 08 d in near future as only 04 out of 11 f her ntil ation rt of ct to d the rged inal an rcial nefit years LP gal 72 esent t the d 08 of 11 AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.05 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-60528- witnesses have be is not likely to serv if released on bail, 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 04.02.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 5 ave been examined so far. The contin to serve any fruitful purpose; there is n bail, the petitioner will not participat 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 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
  
continued detention of the petitioner ere is nothing on record to show that rticipate in the trial 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 ial in any manner.
een allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
ioner that
hat a , the ct to rned t the g an l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.05 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.