CRM-M-69390- IN THE H LOVEPREET SI 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. A Ms. S MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 483 of Bh for grant of regul registered under Substances Act, 1 District STF Wing -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH ET SINGH @ LABHA Versus PUNJAB 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. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for t Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab **** BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant one is the third petition pr of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh regular bail in case arising out of under Section 21(c) of the Narco Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS”) at Polic Wing, SAS Nagar. JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-69390-2025 (O&M) ... Petitioner ...Respondent served 20.03.2026 onounced 23.03.2026 loaded on the 23.03.2026 e judgment is dgment is Full cement of full Not applicable ANISHA BATRA te for the petitioner preferred by the petitioner under Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) ut of FIR No.68 dated 21.05.2021 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic t Police Station Special Task Force, oner dent nder SS”) 2021 ropic orce, AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.23 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-69390- 2. As p information, the p heroin was effecte Recovered contrab benefit of interim pendency of FSL His interim bail w initiated and he w arrested on 27.06 dismissed on 20 04.09.2025 passed 3. It is a of his previous pe 19 prosecution wi conclusion of tria marginally above would be served b the stringent terms custody has furni therefore, argued t 4. Per c absconded in this extended benefit deserve to be allow -2025 (O&M) 2 As per the allegations, on 21.05.20 , the petitioner was apprehended an effected from his conscious possessio contraband was taken into custody. nterim bail by the Trial Court vide o f FSL report. He did not appear afte bail was cancelled. Proceedings und d he was declared as proclaimed offe 27.06.2024. His previous petition on 20.02.2025 and another was d passed by this Court. It is argued by learned counsel for the ous petitions the trial has not progress ion witnesses have been examined so of trial in the near future. The recov above the commercial quantity of co rved by detaining him in custody anym t terms and conditions imposed upon h furnished him a new ground to se gued that the petition deserves to be al Per contra, learned State counsel has in this very case. There are chance enefit of bail. It is, therefore, argu e allowed. .05.2021, on the basis of a secret ed and recovery of 256 grams of ssession. He was formally arrested. tody. The petitioner was extended vide order dated 14.07.2021, due to ar after presentation of FSL report. s under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. were d offender on 31.08.2023. He was etitions as filed by him had been was dismissed as withdrawn on for the petitioner that after dismissal rogressed much since only 02 out of ned so far. There are no chances of recovery as effected from him was of contraband. No useful purpose y anymore. He is ready to abide by upon him. Each day spent by him in to seek concession of bail. It is, o be allowed. el has argued that the petitioner has hances of his absconding again, if , argued that the petition does not ecret s of sted. nded ue to port. were was been on issal ut of es of was pose e by im in It is, r has f not AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.23 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-69390- 5. This C for the parties at co 6. The p 10 months after hi are bleak. It is we for grant of bail, h prima facie case o the offence, circum offence being repe punishment in the fleeing if released threatened, etc. Ho relevant factor to b an accused charge catena of cases tha of time, and the ba filed repeatedly. provide a new c circumstances. Th law prefers bail o requirements of th that grant of bail o to be considered i regard can be pla -2025 (O&M) 3 This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. The petitioner has been in custody fo fter his arrest. The chances of conclu t is well-settled law that the Court, wh l, has to keep certain factors in m case or reasonable ground to believe t circumstances which are peculiar to g repeated, the nature and gravity of in the event of conviction, the danger leased on bail, and reasonable appreh etc. However, at the same time, the pe tor to be considered while deciding wh charged with an offence. The Hon’ble ses that an accused cannot be kept in c the bail application can be considered edly. It has also been held that eve new cause of action for filing a b es. This principle is a part of the broad bail over jail, aiming to balance the s of the criminal justice system. It is w f bail on account of delay in trial and ered in the light of Section 37 of th be placed upon the observations mad ubmissions made by learned counsel ody for over a period of 01 year and conclusion of trial in the near future urt, while considering an application s in mind such as whether there is a lieve that the accused has committed liar to the accused, likelihood of the ity of the accusation, severity of the danger of the accused absconding or apprehension of the witnesses being he period of incarceration is also a ing whether bail should be granted to on’ble Apex Court has observed in a pt in custody for an indefinite period sidered on its own merits even if it is at every day spent in custody can g a bail application under certain e broader approach emphasizing that e the rights of the accused with the . It is well settled proposition of law l and long period of incarceration is of the NDPS Act. Reliance in this s made by Hon’ble Apex Court in unsel r and uture ation is a itted f the f the g or eing lso a ed to in a eriod f it is can rtain that h the f law on is this in AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.23 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-69390- Mohd. Muslim @ 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 as it comes with completion of tria held that appella commercial quant incarceration for a -2025 (O&M) 4 m @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delh 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 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. Delhi), 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 les 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 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 52, nnot ve of was more ates laced ion ate t had long most and utory of ently ction r bail early ourt n of f her AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.23 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-69390- 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 07 da only 02 out 19 pro detention of the p -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 07 days. The trial is not likely to b prosecution witnesses have been ex f the petitioner is not likely to serve 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 igarh 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 een examined so far. The continued serve any fruitful purpose. There is ntil ation hich ents, ction ial is 1973 an rcial nefit years LP gal 72 esent t the r, 10 re as nued re is AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.23 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-69390- nothing on record participate in the t 12. In vie case is made out f petition is allowed his furnishing pers trial Court/Chief J 13. It is m the purpose of dec on the merits of th 14. In the petitioner, it shall application seekin 15. Since any, is rendered in 23.03.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 6 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 It is made clear that any observation of deciding the present petition and t s of the case. In the event of there being any FIR t shall be open to the respondent-State seeking cancellation of bail. Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous. (MAN Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes Whether reportable:- Yes/No ed on bail, the petitioner will not 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. vation made herein above is only for and the same shall have no bearing y FIR/complaint lodged against the State to seek redressal by filing an allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No l not hat a , the ct to rned for aring t the g an n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.23 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.