IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 110 Angrej Singh State of Punjab [ CORAM: Present : SURYA PARTAP SINGH under Section 483 of been filed for the commission of of and 29 of being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’ Station Special Operation Cell 2. ‘Inspector Sukhbir Singh’ leading a team of police officials, he received a tip that a large quantity of ‘Heroin’ was being sm and ‘Angre CRM-M-31066-2025 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Singh VERSUS Punjab CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Mr. Brijesh Nandan, Advocate Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. This petition for bail is the third under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita been filed with regard to a case arising out of for the commission of offence punishable under Section and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’ and Sections 41/52 Special Operation Cell, Amritsar, The abovementioned FIR came into being Inspector Sukhbir Singh’, who reported that on 14.09.2025 leading a team of police officials, he received a tip that a large quantity of ‘Heroin’ was being sm and ‘Angrej Singh’ (petitioner herein) from across the border. It was also (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-31066-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.02.2026 ..... Petitioner VERSUS ..... Respondent SURYA PARTAP SINGH Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. ***** third petition, filed by the petitioner Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.32 dated 14.09.2023 fence punishable under Sections 21, 23, 25, 27 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter and Sections 41/52-A of Prisons Act, Police Amritsar, District Amritsar. he abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of who reported that on 14.09.2025, when he was leading a team of police officials, he received a tip-off from a reliable source that a large quantity of ‘Heroin’ was being smuggled by ‘Gurmeet Singh’ from across the border. It was also (O&M) .2026 Petitioner ..... Respondent petitioner has 14.09.2023, 21, 23, 25, 27-A Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter Police at the instance of when he was source Singh’ from across the border. It was also GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document reported that the informant had also consignment of 3. information abovementioned efforts led ‘Gurmeet 4. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent State. Hence service of notice is hereby dispensed w Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. N State Counsel has orally oppose 5. 6. is innocent has already faced prolonged incarceration for being in custody for a period of more than two years the petitioner, there is a question mark with regard to the manner the alleged recovery of contraband had taken place, and that the trial is taking place at a very slow pace only seven counsel for the petitioner that Singh, has already been accorded the benefit of bail by this Court. CRM-M-31066-2025 (O&M) 2 reported that the informant had also stated consignment of ‘Heroin’ from across the Border It is the case of the prosecution that in view of above information, a picket was deputed and a barricade was laid abovementioned drug dealers. As per prosecution efforts led to recovery of 1.600 kg of ‘Heroin’ from the posse Singh’ and ‘Angrej Singh’ (petitioner herein) Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent State. Hence service of notice is hereby dispensed w Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on No formal reply has been filed by the State State Counsel has orally opposed the present petition Heard. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that he has already faced prolonged incarceration for being in custody for a period of more than two years and five months. Acc petitioner, there is a question mark with regard to the manner alleged recovery of contraband had taken place, and that the trial is place at a very slow pace, as out of only seven have been examined so far. It has been counsel for the petitioner that co-accused of the petitioner, namely Singh, has already been accorded the benefit of bail by this Court. (O&M) 2 stated about the arrival of a large Border in the recent past. osecution that in view of abovementioned eputed and a barricade was laid to nab the drug dealers. As per prosecution, the abovementioned of ‘Heroin’ from the possession of ’ (petitioner herein). Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent State. Hence service of notice is hereby dispensed with. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on o formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned the present petition. been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner who has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that he has already faced prolonged incarceration for being in custody for a period months. According to learned counsel for petitioner, there is a question mark with regard to the manner, in which alleged recovery of contraband had taken place, and that the trial is as out of thirty one prosecution witnesse It has been further argued by learned accused of the petitioner, namely Gurmeet Singh, has already been accorded the benefit of bail by this Court. about the arrival of a large mentioned to nab the the abovementioned ssion of Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent- The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on the learned been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner who has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that he has already faced prolonged incarceration for being in custody for a period ording to learned counsel for in which alleged recovery of contraband had taken place, and that the trial is prosecution witnesses, argued by learned Gurmeet GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7. abovementioned recovery of ‘commercial under Section accorded to the petitioner. 8. 9. NDPS Act, down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hussain v. State wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that grant of bail on account of undue delay in trial cannot be said to NDPS Act, given the imperative of Section 436 offences under the Act. 10. Supreme Court of India in the case of West Bengal on 14.09.2023 1109, extended the benefit of bail to the accused, who had been incarcerated for a perio time. The above prolonged incarceration generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article CRM-M-31066-2025 (O&M) 3 The learned State Counsel abovementioned arguments. According to learned State recovery of contraband in the present case comes within the ambit of commercial quantity’ and therefore, unless the twin under Section-37 of NDPS Act are satisfied, the benefit orded to the petitioner. The record has been perused carefully. The principles governing the benefit of bail in a case NDPS Act, pertaining to recovery of commercial quantity, down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hussain v. State’ (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that grant of bail on account of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered under Section NDPS Act, given the imperative of Section 436 offences under the Act. In this regard it is also relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Manmandal West Bengal’, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on 14.09.2023 and ‘Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha , extended the benefit of bail to the accused, who had been incarcerated for a period of almost 2-3 years and the trial was likely to take considerable time. The above-mentioned benefit has been given by observing that prolonged incarceration generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article (O&M) 3 ounsel has controverted the arguments. According to learned State Counsel, the contraband in the present case comes within the ambit of unless the twin conditions enshrined ct are satisfied, the benefit of bail should not The record has been perused carefully. he principles governing the benefit of bail in a case under pertaining to recovery of commercial quantity, have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Mohd. Muslim @ (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352 are relevant, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that grant of bail on account of be fettered under Section-37 of the NDPS Act, given the imperative of Section 436-A which is applicable to In this regard it is also relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble Manmandal and Another v. State of , Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha’, 2023 SCC Online SC , extended the benefit of bail to the accused, who had been incarcerated 3 years and the trial was likely to take considerable mentioned benefit has been given by observing that prolonged incarceration generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article-21 of the Constitution, and in has controverted the ounsel, the contraband in the present case comes within the ambit of conditions enshrined should not be under laid ‘Mohd. Muslim @ are relevant, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that grant of bail on account of 37 of the A which is applicable to In this regard it is also relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble and Another v. State of , Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided , 2023 SCC Online SC , extended the benefit of bail to the accused, who had been incarcerated 3 years and the trial was likely to take considerable mentioned benefit has been given by observing that prolonged incarceration generally militates against the most precious e Constitution, and in GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document such a situation, the constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo contained under Section 11. case of ‘Santosh Pawar Vs. State of C No.4883/2025 Section 37 of NDPS Act will not be a bar for considering the case of an accused for bail as it comes with a condition that the prosecution would press for an early completion of trial. In the above Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that appellant who was being prosecuted for being in possession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, was entitled for bail in view of her in 19 months. 12. Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme C with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods would apply 13. Criminal Appeal No.4911 of 2025 quantity of narcotic substance the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India accorded CRM-M-31066-2025 (O&M) 4 such a situation, the constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo contained under Section-37 of the NDPS Act. In addition to above, in a recently pronounced verdict in the Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr.’ Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court Section 37 of NDPS Act will not be a bar for considering the case of an accused for bail as it comes with a condition that the prosecution would ress for an early completion of trial. In the above Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that appellant who was being prosecuted for being in possession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, was entitled for bail in view of her in 19 months. Similarly in another case i.e. in the case of Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India expressed the opinion that Section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [which req be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods would apply in such cases. In the case of ‘Ismail Khan @ Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan Criminal Appeal No.4911 of 2025 with regard to recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic substance the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India accorded (O&M) 4 such a situation, the constitutional principles must override the statutory 37 of the NDPS Act. In addition to above, in a recently pronounced verdict in the hhattishgarh & Anr.’ Criminal Appeal , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act will not be a bar for considering the case of an accused for bail as it comes with a condition that the prosecution would ress for an early completion of trial. In the above-mentioned case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that appellant who was being prosecuted for being in possession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, was entitled for bail in view of her incarceration for a period of Similarly in another case i.e. in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation’ (2022) 10 SCC 51 prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the Hon’ble ourt of India, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The expressed the opinion that Section 436A of which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods Ismail Khan @ Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan with regard to recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic substance the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India accorded such a situation, the constitutional principles must override the statutory In addition to above, in a recently pronounced verdict in the hhattishgarh & Anr.’ Criminal Appeal rs of Section 37 of NDPS Act will not be a bar for considering the case of an accused for bail as it comes with a condition that the prosecution would mentioned case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that appellant who was being prosecuted for being in possession of commercial quantity of narcotic carceration for a period of Satender Kumar prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the Hon’ble ourt of India, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The expressed the opinion that Section 436A of uires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods] Ismail Khan @ Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan’ with regard to recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic substance the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India accorded GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the benefit of bail to the accused in view of prolonged incarceration for a period of 02 years and 08 months of the accused. 14. No.15699 Bengal’ and in the case of Appeal No.4872 of 2025 15. Bengal’ SLP (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023, the benefit of bail has been accorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to an accused, who was found in the possession of 115 bottles of phensedyl, by observing that: observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that there is substantial compliance of Section 16. The State o Court of India afforded the benefit of bail to the accused, who was found in possession of 10,000 ml of codeine phosphate, and was in custody for a CRM-M-31066-2025 (O&M) 5 the benefit of bail to the accused in view of prolonged incarceration for a period of 02 years and 08 months of the accused. The similar benefit has been taken in another appeal i.e. No.15699-2025 titled as ‘Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK vs. The State of West and in the case of ‘Pamesh Arora vs. UT Chandigarh Appeal No.4872 of 2025. In the case of ‘Hasanujjaman & Ors. V/s Bengal’ SLP (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023, the benefit of bail has been accorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to an accused, who was found in the possession of 115 bottles of phensedyl, by observing that: a) the petitioner was in custody for a period of one year and three months; b) the investigation in that case was complete and charge had been filed, but charges were yet to be framed; c) the conclusion of trial would take some time; and d) the petitioner had no criminal ante In view of abovementioned prevailing factors, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that there is substantial compliance of Section-37 of NDPS Act. Similarly, in the case of ‘Nandlal Mondal @Abhay Mondal V/s The State of West Bengal’ SLP(Crl) No.12788/2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India afforded the benefit of bail to the accused, who was found in possession of 10,000 ml of codeine phosphate, and was in custody for a (O&M) 5 the benefit of bail to the accused in view of prolonged incarceration for a period of 02 years and 08 months of the accused. benefit has been taken in another appeal i.e. SLP Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK vs. The State of West Pamesh Arora vs. UT Chandigarh’ Criminal In the case of ‘Hasanujjaman & Ors. V/s The State of West Bengal’ SLP (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023, the benefit of bail has been accorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to an accused, who was found in the possession of 115 bottles of phensedyl, by observing that:- ody for a period of one year and three the investigation in that case was complete and charge-sheet had been filed, but charges were yet to be framed; the conclusion of trial would take some time; and the petitioner had no criminal antecedents. In view of abovementioned prevailing factors, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that there is substantial Similarly, in the case of ‘Nandlal Mondal @Abhay Mondal V/s f West Bengal’ SLP(Crl) No.12788/2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India afforded the benefit of bail to the accused, who was found in possession of 10,000 ml of codeine phosphate, and was in custody for a the benefit of bail to the accused in view of prolonged incarceration for a SLP Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK vs. The State of West Criminal The State of West Bengal’ SLP (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023, the benefit of bail has been accorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to an accused, who was found in the ody for a period of one year and three sheet In view of abovementioned prevailing factors, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that there is substantial Similarly, in the case of ‘Nandlal Mondal @Abhay Mondal V/s f West Bengal’ SLP(Crl) No.12788/2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India afforded the benefit of bail to the accused, who was found in possession of 10,000 ml of codeine phosphate, and was in custody for a GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document period of one and a half year, by considering tha take long time. 17. in the light of above i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi) vii) viii) 18. Hon’ble Supreme Court Uttar Pradesh and anothe wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a CRM-M-31066-2025 (O&M) 6 period of one and a half year, by considering tha take long time. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed in the light of above-mentioned principles of law, it transpires that: i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of than two years and five months ii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents iii) that on the ground of parity also, benefit of bail as his co-accused role, has already been enlarged on bail; iv) that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; v) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future of thirty one prosecution witnesses, only examined so far; vi) that the detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not likely to serve any purpose; vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and viii) that there is nothing on recor the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a (O&M) 6 period of one and a half year, by considering that conclusion of trial would If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed mentioned principles of law, it transpires that:- that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more months; the petitioner has clean antecedents; parity also, the petitioner is entitled for the accused Gurmeet Singh, having similar has already been enlarged on bail; nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, as out of thirty one prosecution witnesses, only seven have been detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the in the case of “Dataram versus State of r”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a t conclusion of trial would If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed more petitioner is entitled for the , having similar nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession , as out seven have been detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the d to show that if released on bail, In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the in the case of “Dataram versus State of r”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, the instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is en even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessi bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case”. 19. India in the case of ‘ Investigation and Another’, ( In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that “ in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to CRM-M-31066-2025 (O&M) 7 person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, the instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessi bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case”. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Investigation and Another’, (2022) 10 SCC 51, In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that “ in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to (O&M) 7 person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or tirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of 2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that “the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to re are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or tirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the ty to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of Bureau of are also relevant in this case. the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document legal principles. We cannot mi is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice 20. Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322 India has observed that “ incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extrem for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases p efficiently 21. fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This by Hon’ble Apex court in Another”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354 22. involved in the instan CRM-M-31066-2025 (O&M) 8 legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice”. Recently, in the case of ‘ Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322 India has observed that “if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, ely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases p efficiently”. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in “Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a (O&M) 8 x up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, ely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are ely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed o elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, t case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a x up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, ely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are ely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides roceed o elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, t case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 23. 23. case, the present petition is hereby to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H shall be subject to following conditions: (i) (ii) (iii) 27.02.202 Gaurav Thakur CRM-M-31066-2025 (O&M) 9 conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the etition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the sfaction of learned trial Court. However the above subject to following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to d to the Court or to any other authority; (ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of th and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prio of the trial Court; 2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable (O&M) 9 conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the owever the abovementioned concession that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts ourt or to any other authority; that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Yes/No conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the . The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the concession that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with isclose such facts that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change e trial; r permission ) GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document