CRM-M-69131- IN THE H (232) BALWINDER SI STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Ms. M Mr. R MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 483 of Bh for grant of regul registered under S (for short “NDPS previous petitions and 19.11.2025. 2. As pe received to the eff was involved in th going from Villag supplying intoxica could be apprehe information to be -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH ER SINGH Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Ms. Manpreet Ghuman, Advocate for Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant one is the third petition pr of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh f regular bail in case arising out of nder Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and NDPS”) at Police Station STF Moh titions were dismissed as withdrawn v As per the allegations, on 20.03.20 the effect that the petitioner alongwit d in the sale of intoxicant tablets and a Village Jodhpur to Barnala by Khud toxicant tablets to their customers. It pprehended with huge quantity of t to be true, a raiding party was formed JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-69131-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.02.2026 ... Petitioner
...Respondent
ANISHA BATRA
ate for the petitioner Punjab preferred by the petitioner under a Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) ut of FIR No.49 dated 20.03.2024 gs and Psychotropic Substances Act Mohali, District STF Wing. His awn vide order dated on 26.05.2025 .03.2024, a secret information was ngwith the co-accused Manjit Singh s and at that point of time, they were Khuddi Kalan on a motorbike for rs. It was further informed that they y of tablets. Believing the secret formed which immediately rushed to M) 2026 nder ) 2024 s Act His 2025 was ingh were e for they ecret ed to AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.18 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-69131- the informed plac intoxicant tablets which was taken accused failed to p was also taken into suffered disclosu Investigation now is facing trial for c 3. It is a falsely implicated is in custody sinc the near future s examined so far. H by detaining him him had been dism furnished a ground urged that the peti 4. Per c has argued that th quantity of contr There are chances benefit of bail. Th therefore, argued t -2025 (O&M) 2 d place and apprehended the petition ablets of Tramadol were recovered fro taken into custody by the Police. A ed to produce any document qua owne en into the custody. On interrogation sclosure statement admitting their n now stands completed and the petiti l for commission of aforementioned o It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case. A false recovery h y since 20.03.2024. There are no cha ture since only 05 out of 17 pros far. His antecedents are clean. No u him in custody anymore. The prev en dismissed as withdrawn. Each day ground to move for bail afresh. With e petition deserves to be allowed. Per contra, learned State counsel wh that there are serious allegations again contraband had been recovered fro hances of his absconding or committin ail. The rigors of Section 37 of NDPS gued that the petition does not deserve petitioner and the co-accused. 800 red from their conscious possession ice. As the petitioner and the co- a ownership of the vehicle, the same gation, the petitioner and co-accused their involvement in the crime. petitioner alongwith the co-accused oned offences. l for the petitioner that he has been very has been planted upon him. He no chances of conclusion of trial in prosecution witnesses have been No useful purpose would be served e previous two petitions as filed by ch day spent by him in custody has With these broad submissions, it is el while relying on the status report against the petitioner. Commercial ed from his conscious possession. mitting simile offences, if extended NDPS are attracted in this case. It is, eserve to be allowed. 800 ssion - same used rime. used been . He ial in been rved d by has it is eport rcial sion. nded It is, AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.18 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-69131- 5. This C at considerable len 6. The period of 01 yea progressed much prosecution witnes Court, while cons factors in mind su to believe that the peculiar to the acc gravity of the accu the danger of th reasonable appreh same time, the per while deciding wh offence. The Hon accused cannot be application can be has also been held action for filing a a part of the broad to balance the righ system. It is we delay in trial and Section 37 of the -2025 (O&M) 3 This Court has heard the rival submi ble length. The petitioner is in custody since 1 year 10 months and 26 days in much after disposal of his previous p witnesses have been examined so far. e considering an application for gran ind such as whether there is a prima fa at the accused has committed the offe the accused, likelihood of the offence e accusation, severity of the punishm of the accused absconding or flee prehension of the witnesses being th the period of incarceration is also a re ing whether bail should be granted to e Hon’ble Apex Court has observed not be kept in custody for an indefini can be considered on its own merits e 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 is well settled proposition of law th l and long period of incarceration is t of the NDPS Act. Reliance in this re ubmissions made by both the parties since 20.03.2024. He has spent a ys in custody. The trial has not ious petitions as only 05 out of 17 so far. It is well-settled law that the r grant of bail, has to keep certain rima facie case or reasonable ground he offence, circumstances which are fence being repeated, the nature and nishment in the event of conviction, r fleeing if released on bail, and eing threatened, etc. However, at the so a relevant factor to be considered nted to an accused charged with an served in a catena of cases that an definite period of time, and the bail erits 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 law that grant of bail on account of on is to be considered in the light of this regard can be placed upon the rties nt a not f 17 t the rtain ound h are and tion, and t the ered th an at an bail ly. It se of le is ming stice nt of ht of n the AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.18 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-69131- observations made State (NCT of Del of bail on accoun Section 37 of the which is applicabl 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 7. Relia Chhattishgarh & pronounced verdic 37 of NDPS Act w as it comes with completion of tria held that appella commercial quant incarceration for a -2025 (O&M) 4 s made by Hon’ble Apex Court in M f Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, ccount of undue delay in trial canno of the NDPS Act, given the imperativ plicable to offence under the Act. It w 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 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.
in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. 352, wherein it was held that grant cannot be said to be fettered under erative of Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. ct. It 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 d case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ecuted for being in possession of was entitled for bail in view of her v. grant nder .P.C. s are . The o be dal al) ha, nded d by cious ch a argo of ently ction r bail early ourt n of f her AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.18 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-69131- 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.
11. On an case in the light o petitioner has suf months and 26 da only 05 out of 1 petitioner’s has cl -2025 (O&M) 5 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 On analyzing the peculiar facts and light of the aforementioned principle as suffered prolonged incarceration 26 days. The trial is not likely to b t of 17 prosecution witnesses have has clean antecedents. The continued 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 ts and circumstances of the present nciples of law, it transpires that the ration for a period of 01 year, 10 ly to be concluded in near future as have been examined so far. The ntinued detention of the petitioner is ntil ation hich ents, ction ial is 1973 an rcial nefit years LP gal 72 esent t the r, 10 re as The er is AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.18 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-69131- not likely to serve 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 17.02.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 6 serve any fruitful purpose. There is n 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 d as 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
  
re 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
that hat a , the ct to rned t the g an l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.18 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.