CRM-M-72791- IN THE H (123) BAMBER SINGH STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. K Ms. S MANISHA BATR 1. The in case arising out of the Narcotic D (Section 27 and District Bathinda, commercial quant accused Pardeep (Pardeep Singh), being nominated facing trial now. P by this Court. -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH
INGH @ NIKKA @ BEMBER SIN Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS . Karandeep Singh Sidhu, Advocat Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner is making prayer for g ng out of FIR No.23 dated 18.03.2024 otic Drugs and Psychotropic Substan and 29 of NDPS added later on) hinda, on the allegations, that on 18.0 quantity were recovered from the rdeep Singh and as per the disclosu , those tablets had been supplied b nated as additional accused, he was a now. Previous petitions as filed by the JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-72791-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.02.2026 R SINGH ... Petitioner
...Respondent
ANISHA BATRA
dvocate for the petitioner r for granting him concession of bail .2024 registered under Section 22-C ubstances Act (for short “NDPS”) on) at Police Station Balianwali, n 18.03.2024, intoxicating tablets of the conscious possession of co- sclosure statement suffered by him plied by the present petitioner. After was arrested on 31.03.2024 and is by the petitioner had been dismissed M) f bail C ) wali, of - him After nd is issed AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.20 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-72791- 2. Praye of bail on the gro learned counsel fo also been extended even at a better foo 3. Status counsel has argued the date of the dis the petitioner does 4. This C for both the parties 5. The of about one year prosecution witnes take considerable accused cannot b 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 -2025 (O&M) 2 Prayer in this petition has been mad the ground of prolonged incarceratio nsel for the petitioner that now the c tended benefit of bail, as such on pari tter footing deserves to be extended the Status report and custody certificate h argued that there is no substantive cha e dismissal of his previous petitions r does not deserve to be accepted. This Court has heard the rival submis parties at considerable length. The petitioner has been in custody sin e year and 11 months. The trial has n witnesses are to be examined. It is, rable time to conclude. It is well set not be kept in custody for an indef can be considered on its own merit ev 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 n made prayer for extending benefit eration and it is also submitted by the co-accused Pardeep Singh has n parity, the petitioner whose case is ded the same benefit. icate have been filed. Learned State ve change in the circumstances from itions and hence the prayer made by ubmissions made by learned counsel ody since 31.03.2024 i.e. for a period l has not progressed much as still 12 It is, therefore, apparent that it will ell settled proposition of law that an indefinite period of time and bail erit 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 nefit d by has se is State from e by unsel eriod ll 12 will at an bail It se of le is ming stice elay AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.20 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-72791- 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 danger of unjusti hardened rather th and Another v. No.8656 of 2023 2023 LiveLaw (S benefit of bail to observing that pr fundamental right situation, the con contained under Se 6. Relia Chhattishgarh & pronounced verdic 37 of NDPS Act w as it comes with -2025 (O&M) 3 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 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 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 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 ction tions of il on 37 of ch is are . The o be dal al) ha, nded d by cious ch a argo of ently ction r bail early AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.20 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-72791- completion of tria held that appella commercial quant incarceration for a 7. Simil v. Central Bureau and inordinate del considered the cor 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.
-2025 (O&M) 4 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 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 se, 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, 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 ourt n of f her ntil ation hich ents, ction ial is 1973 an rcial nefit years LP gal 72 AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.20 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-72791- 10. On an case in the light o petitioner has suff months. The tria prosecution witne granted concession benefit. The con fruitful purpose. T petitioner will not 11. In vie case is made out f petition is allowed his furnishing pers trial Court/Chief J 12. Howe cancellation of b subsequent case. 13. It is m the purpose of dec on the merits of th -2025 (O&M) 5 On analyzing the peculiar facts and light of the aforementioned principle as suffered prolonged incarceration fo he trial is not likely to be conclud witnesses are to be examined. The cession of bail. On parity, he too des e continued detention of the petition ose. There is nothing on record to sho ill not participate in the trial or will ab 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 ef Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistr However, it will be open for th of bail in case the petitioner is f case. It is made clear that any observation of deciding the present petition and t s of the case. ts and circumstances of the present nciples of law, it transpires that the tion for a period of 01 year and 11 ncluded in near future as still 12 he co-accused has already been oo deserves to be extended the same etitioner is not likely to serve any to show that if released on bail, the ill 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. or the prosecution to apply for r is found involved in any other vation made herein above is only for and the same shall have no bearing esent t the d 11 ll 12 been same any l, the hat a , the ct to rned for other for aring AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.20 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-72791- 14. Since any, is rendered in 20.02.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 6 Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes
   een allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.20 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.