CRM-M-15373 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 234 Ajaib Singh State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 petitioner in FIR No. 19 dated 12.02.2021, registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib. The first petition, bearing number on 10.05.2022 was dismissed on 17.07.2024. 2. Singh @ Billa were apprehende recovery 55 kgs. of poppy husk was effected from them. trial before the learned trial Court. 3. has been falsely implicated in th its conclusion would still take a long time. 15373-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ajaib Singh Versus Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Yashpal Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Sharma, AAG, Punjab. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) The instant one is the third petition, filed under Section Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 petitioner in FIR No. 19 dated 12.02.2021, registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib. The first bearing number CRM-M-29324- on 10.05.2022 and the second petition, bearing number CRM was dismissed on 17.07.2024. As per the allegations, the petitioner and co Singh @ Billa were apprehended by a recovery 55 kgs. of poppy husk was effected from them. trial before the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued has been falsely implicated in this case. The trial is substantially delayed and its conclusion would still take a long time. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-15373-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.05.2025 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Yashpal Thakur, Advocate Mr. Vivek Sharma, AAG, Punjab. petition, filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 19 dated 12.02.2021, registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib. The first -2021 was dismissed as withdrawn and the second petition, bearing number CRM-M-52025-2022, As per the allegations, the petitioner and co-accused Harchand a police party on 12.02.2021 and recovery 55 kgs. of poppy husk was effected from them. Now, they are facing Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner The trial is substantially delayed and its conclusion would still take a long time. The petitioner is in custody since -1- 2025 (O&M) .05.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent 483 of , for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 19 dated 12.02.2021, registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib. The first 2021 was dismissed as withdrawn 2022, accused Harchand police party on 12.02.2021 and hey are facing that the petitioner The trial is substantially delayed and The petitioner is in custody since MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.21 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15373 12.02.2021 barring period of interim bail. The prolonged incarceration has entitled the petitioner to seek bail. concession of interim bail. be allowed 4. submitted therein and learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the petitioner and co Hence, it is urged that 5. and have also gone through the record carefully. 6. co-accused were apprehended by the police party on 12.02.2021 and recovery of 55 kgs. of poppy husk was report reveals that though the petitioner was convicted in one more case of similar nature for two months but he has undergone the sentence. It is also reflected that the trial is still at the stage of recording the prosecution evidence, despite the fact that prosecution witnesses are still remai delayed and there is no likelihood of the same to conclude in near future petitioner is in Hon’ble Supreme Court in (SC) 533 has held that the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the 15373-2025 (O&M) 12.02.2021 barring period of interim bail. The prolonged incarceration has entitled the petitioner to seek bail. The petitioner concession of interim bail. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. Status report has been filed by the respondent submitted therein and learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the petitioner and co Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable and have also gone through the record carefully. As per the allegations, the petitioner and accused were apprehended by the police party on 12.02.2021 and recovery of 55 kgs. of poppy husk was effected from them. report reveals that though the petitioner was convicted in one more case of nature for two months but he has undergone the sentence. It is also reflected that the trial is still at the stage of recording the prosecution evidence, despite the fact that challan was presented on 01.07.2021 prosecution witnesses are still remained to be examined. delayed and there is no likelihood of the same to conclude in near future petitioner is in prolonged incarceration of more than Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rabi Prakash vs. State of Odisha has held that the prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the 12.02.2021 barring period of interim bail. The prolonged incarceration has The petitioner had not misused the It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to and the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. It is submitted therein and learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the petitioner and co-accused. on is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the record carefully. the petitioner and above named accused were apprehended by the police party on 12.02.2021 and recovery effected from them. A perusal of the status report reveals that though the petitioner was convicted in one more case of nature for two months but he has undergone the sentence. It is also reflected that the trial is still at the stage of recording the prosecution was presented on 01.07.2021 and 05 ned to be examined. The trial is obviously delayed and there is no likelihood of the same to conclude in near future. The incarceration of more than three and half years Rabi Prakash vs. State of Odisha : 2023 Live Law he prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the -2- 12.02.2021 barring period of interim bail. The prolonged incarceration has had not misused the It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to . It is submitted therein and learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that commercial accused. length above named accused were apprehended by the police party on 12.02.2021 and recovery A perusal of the status report reveals that though the petitioner was convicted in one more case of nature for two months but he has undergone the sentence. It is also reflected that the trial is still at the stage of recording the prosecution and 05 The trial is obviously . The three and half years. : 2023 Live Law he prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.21 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15373 statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh : 2024 (4) RCR (Criminal) 172 be placed AIR(SC) 1648 2023 AIR(SC) 1648 granting concession of regular bail to an accused, from whom commercial quantity of the contraband was allegedly recovered, has held that on the ground of undue delay in trial 37 of the Satender Kumar Antil v 2022(10) SCC 51 Supreme Court. Reliance can also be placed upon Bhupender Singh v 706, wherein a Division Bench of this Court, respect to achieving balance between right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the rigors enumerated under Section 37 of the from claiming bail invoking parameters India de-hors present case, apparently and evidently, Therefore, keeping in view also the ratio of law as laid down in the aforecited authorities, the considered opinion that petitioner The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his 15373-2025 (O&M) embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh : 2024 (4) RCR (Criminal) 172 be placed upon Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain vs. Stat AIR(SC) 1648 2023 AIR(SC) 1648, wherein granting concession of regular bail to an accused, from whom commercial quantity of the contraband was allegedly recovered, has held that the ground of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reference can also be made to the authority cited as Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022(10) SCC 51, wherein similar observations were made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Reliance can also be placed upon Bhupender Singh vs. Narcotic Control Bureau : (2022) 2 RCR (Criminal) , wherein a Division Bench of this Court, t to achieving balance between right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the rigors enumerated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, has held that convict/accused is not precluded from claiming bail invoking parameters of Article 21 of the Constitution of hors the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the present case, apparently and evidently, Therefore, keeping in view the aforementioned facts and circumstan ratio of law as laid down in the aforecited authorities, the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping in custody anymore. Accordingly, the present petition The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh : 2024 (4) RCR (Criminal) 172. Reliance can also Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) : 2023 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court, while granting concession of regular bail to an accused, from whom commercial quantity of the contraband was allegedly recovered, has held that grant of bail cannot be said to be fettered by Section Reference can also be made to the authority cited as s. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, ervations were made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Reliance can also be placed upon the authority cited as s. Narcotic Control Bureau : (2022) 2 RCR (Criminal) , wherein a Division Bench of this Court, after considering issue with t to achieving balance between right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the rigors enumerated under held that convict/accused is not precluded of Article 21 of the Constitution of the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In the present case, apparently and evidently, the trial is substantially delayed. the aforementioned facts and circumstances and ratio of law as laid down in the aforecited authorities, this Court is of no useful purpose would be served by keeping Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his -3- Similar Ankur Chaudhary vs. Reliance can also 2023 Hon’ble Supreme Court, while granting concession of regular bail to an accused, from whom commercial rant of bail cannot be said to be fettered by Section Reference can also be made to the authority cited as s. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, ervations were made by the Hon’ble the authority cited as s. Narcotic Control Bureau : (2022) 2 RCR (Criminal) after considering issue with t to achieving balance between right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the rigors enumerated under held that convict/accused is not precluded of Article 21 of the Constitution of In the the trial is substantially delayed. ces and this Court is of no useful purpose would be served by keeping the is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.21 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15373 furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. for cancellation subsequent case. 7. for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the cas 16.05.2025 Waseem Ansari Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 15373-2025 (O&M) furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail in case the petitioner subsequent case. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. .05.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply petitioner is found involved in any other It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No -4- furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply is found involved in any other It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.21 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document