CRM-M-70456- IN THE H GURJANT SING STATE OF PUNJ 1 The dat 2 The dat 3 The dat website 4 Whethe pronoun pronoun 5 The del judgme CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. S MANISHA BATR 1. The 483 of Bharatiya N of regular bail in under Sections 21( Act (for short “ND allegations that on -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH SINGH Versus
PUNJAB he date when the judgment is reserved he date when the judgment is pronoun he date when the judgment is uploaded ebsite hether only operative part of the judg ronounced or whether the full judgmen ronounced he delay, if any, of the pronouncement dgment and reasons thereof. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS r. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate for t Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been filed atiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in case arising out of FIR No.17 ns 21(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drug NDPS”) at Police Station Sadar Pa that on 07.11.2023, he was apprehen JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-70456-2025 (O&M) ... Petitioner ...Respondent served 06.03.2026 onounced 10.03.2026 loaded on the 10.03.2026 e judgment is dgment is Full cement of full Not applicable ANISHA BATRA
for the petitioner by the petitioner under Section , 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant 176 dated 07.11.2023 registered Drugs and Psychotropic Substances dar Patti, District Tarn Taran on the rehended alongwith the co-accused M) oner
dent ction grant tered nces n the used AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.10 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-70456- Major Singh and effected from thei petitioner for gra 25.07.2025, wher 2. It is a custody since lo fundamental right trial has not progr on 25.07.2025, on partially. There a continued detentio day spent by him seeking bail. It is, 3. Per co petition had been substantive or dra maintainable. It i grave in nature. T As such it is stress 4. This C for the parties at co -2025 (O&M) 2 h and recovery of commercial quantit m their conscious possession. The pr or grant of regular bail had been whereas an application for grant of int It is argued by learned counsel for the ce long. His prolonged incarce l right guaranteed under Article 21 o progressed at all since even after dis 25, only 01 prosecution witness has b here are no chances of conclusion of etention of the petitioner will not ser y him in custody has furnished him a g . It is, therefore, argued that the petitio Per contra, learned State counsel has been dismissed by passing a det or drastic change in the circumstance e. It is further argued that the allegat ure. The rigors of Section 37 of NDPS stressed that the petition does not des This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. uantity of 705 grams of heroin was The previous petition as filed by the been dismissed by this Court on t of interim bail had been allowed. for the petitioner that he has been in ncarceration militates against his 21 of the Constitution of India. The ter dismissal of his previous petition s has been examined so far, that too of trial in the near future. The ot serve any useful purpose. Each him a ground to move bail afresh for petition deserves to be allowed. el has argued that since the previous a detailed order and there is no stances, therefore, the petition is not allegations against the petitioner are NDPS Act are attracted in this case. ot deserve to be allowed. missions made by learned counsel was y the t on en in his The tition t too The Each h for ious s no s not r are case. unsel AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.10 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-70456- 5. The p have been found i He is in custody si future are bleak. application for gra there is a prima fa committed the o likelihood of the accusation, severit the accused absc apprehension of th the period of inc deciding whether The Hon’ble Ape cannot be kept i 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 in trial and long pe 37 of the NDPS A made by Hon’ble -2025 (O&M) 3 The petitioner alongwith the co-accu ound in conscious possession of comm tody since 10.11.2023. The chances of leak. It is well-settled law that the for grant of bail, has to keep certain fa ima facie case or reasonable ground t the offence, circumstances which a of the offence being repeated, the severity of the punishment in the even d absconding or fleeing if release n of the witnesses being threatened, et of incarceration is also a relevant f ether bail should be granted to an acc e Apex Court has observed in a cat kept in custody for an indefinite p 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 well settled proposition of law that gr ong period of incarceration is to be co PS Act. Reliance in this regard can be ’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Muslim accused Major Singh is alleged to commercial quantity of contraband. nces of conclusion of trial in the near at the Court, while considering an tain factors in mind such as whether und to believe that the accused has hich are peculiar to the accused, d, the nature and gravity of the e event of conviction, the danger of released on bail, and reasonable ned, etc. However, at the same time, vant factor to be considered while an accused charged with an offence. a catena of cases that an accused inite 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 that grant of bail on account of delay be considered in the light of Section can be placed upon the observations slim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of ed to and. near g an ether has used, the r of able time, hile ence. used bail ly. It se of le is ming stice elay ction tions of AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.10 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-70456- 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 righ situation, the con contained under Se 6. Relia Chhattishgarh & pronounced verdic 37 of NDPS Act w as it comes with completion of tria held that appella -2025 (O&M) 4 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 of trial. In the above-mentioned case ppellant who was being prosecuted 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 d case the Hon’ble Supreme Court ecuted for being in possession 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 ourt n of AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.10 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-70456- 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.
10. On an case in the light o petitioner has suf -2025 (O&M) 5 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 On analyzing the peculiar facts and light of the aforementioned principle as suffered prolonged incarceration 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 ts and circumstances of the present les of law, it transpires that the ation for a period of 02 years, 03 f her ntil ation hich ents, ction ial is 1973 an rcial nefit years LP gal 72 esent t the s, 03 AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.10 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-70456- months and 23 day 01 out of 12 pros detention of the p nothing on record participate in the t 11. In vie case is made out f petition is allowed his furnishing pers trial Court/Chief J 12. In the petitioner, it shall application seekin 13. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 14. Since any, is rendered in 10.03.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 6 23 days, the trial is not likely to be co 2 prosecution witnesses have been ex f the petitioner is not likely to serve record to show that if released on n the trial or will abscond. 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
  
be concluded in near future as only een examined so far. The continued serve any fruitful purpose; there is ed on bail, the petitioner will not his 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.
allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
only nued re is l not hat a , the ct to rned t the g an l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.10 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.