CRM-M-47156- IN THE H (121) HARPREET SIN STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Ms. R Ms. S MANISHA BATR 1. The 483 of Bharatiya N of regular bail in under Section 21 (Section 29 of th Force, District STF 2. As p apprehended on t recovered from hi the Police. He wa -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH
T SINGH @ BAGGA Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS s. Rakhi Sharma, Advocate for the Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been filed atiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ail in case arising out of FIR No.79 on 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and of the NDPS Act added later on) a ict STF Wing, SAS Nagar, Mohali. As per the allegations, on 13 on the basis of a secret informatio rom his conscious possession, which He was formally arrested. In pursuan JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-47156-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.02.2026 ... Petitioner
...Respondent
ANISHA BATRA
or the petitioner by the petitioner under Section , 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant 79 dated 13.05.2024 registered and Psychotropic Substances Act on) at Police Station Special Task 13.05.2024, the petitioner was rmation and 01 Kg of heroin was which was taken into possession by ursuance of his disclosure statement, 2026 ction grant tered t Task was was n by , AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.24 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-47156- the co-accused Su been arrested. Inv 3. It is a falsely implicated is in custody sinc useful purpose wo accused Sukhwind deserves to be ex deserves to be allo 4. Per c report has argued petitioner. The co conscious possessi this case. The pe been registered a similar offences o that the petition do 5. This C at considerable len 6. The obviously take co -2025 (O&M) 2 sed Sukhwinder Singh was nominated d. Investigation now stands concluded It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case. A false recovery h y since long. Trial would take consid se would be served by detaining him hwinder Singh has been extended ben be extended the same benefit. It is llowed. Per contra, learned State counsel w argued that there are serious and sp The commercial quantity of contraban ossession. The rigors of Section 37 of he petitioner is a habitual offender, a ered against him. There are chance nces or absconding, if extended benef tion does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submis ble length. The petitioner is in custody since considerable time to conclude as inated as additional accused and had cluded. l for the petitioner that he has been very has been planted upon him. He considerable time to conclude. No g him in custody anymore. The co- ed benefit of bail. On parity, he too . It is thus, urged that the petition nsel while relying upon the status and specific allegations against the traband had been recovered from his 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in nder, as a case of similar nature has chances of petitioner’s committing benefit of bail. It is, thus, stressed ubmissions made by both the parties since 13.05.2024. The trial will de as only 02 out of 14 prosecution had been . He No - e too tition tatus t the his ed in has itting ssed rties will ution AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.24 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-47156- witnesses have be grant of bail on ac considered in the can be placed upo Muslim @ Hussa wherein it was he be said to be fetter Section 436-A of also observed that 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 7. Relia Chhattishgarh & pronounced verdic 37 of NDPS Act w -2025 (O&M) 3 ave been examined so far. It is well l on account of delay in trial and long the light of Section 37 of the NDP ed upon the observations made by H ussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 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 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 well settled proposition of law that long period of incarceration is to be NDPS Act. Reliance in this regard Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. lhi), 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 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 that to be gard hd. 52, nnot ve of was more ates laced ion ate t had long most and utory of ently ction r bail AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.24 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-47156- as it comes with completion of tria held that appella commercial quant incarceration for a 8. Simil v. Central Bureau and inordinate del considered the cor including Section 436A (which requ not concluded wit would apply.
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.
-2025 (O&M) 4 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 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 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, 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 early ourt n of f her ntil ation hich ents, ction ial is 1973 an rcial nefit years LP gal 72 AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.24 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-47156- 11. CRM-M-47156- 11. On an case in the light o petitioner has suf months and 10 da only 02 out of 1 involvement in o benefit of bail to h serve any fruitful p bail, the petitioner 12. In vie case is made out f petition is allowed his furnishing pers trial Court/Chief J 13. In the petitioner, it shal application seekin 14. 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 10 days. The trial is not likely to b t of 14 prosecution witnesses have t in other case cannot be considered ail to him. The continued detention o uitful purpose. There is nothing on rec itioner will not participate in the trial o 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 to seeking cancellation of bail. 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 ration for a period of 01 year, 09 ly to be concluded in near future as have been examined so far. His sidered to be a reason for denying tion of the petitioner is not likely to on record to show that if released on 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 dent to seek redressal by filing an vation made herein above is only for and the same shall have no bearing esent t the r, 09 re as His ying ly to d on hat a , the ct to rned t the g an y for aring AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.24 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-47156- 15. Since any, is rendered in 23.02.2026 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 2026.02.24 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.