CRM-M-55509- IN THE H (220) SAHIL PREET S STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Mr. R MANISHA BATR 1. The 483 of Bharatiya N of regular bail in under Section 307 and 29 of the N “NDPS”) [Section District Tarn Taran 2. As pe nakka at link road motorbike. When the bullet motorcy who was later on -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH EET SINGH @ SAHIL Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Mr. Hakikat Singh Grewal, Advocate Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been filed atiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ail in case arising out of FIR No.51 n 307 of IPC, Sections 25 and 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrop ection 27A of NDPS added later on) n Taran. As per the allegations, on 27.04.20 k road from Village Sursingh, when 04 When signal was given to them to sto otorcycle slowed down the speed of th ter on identified as accused Ranjit Sin JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-55509-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 05.02.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA
vocate for the petitioner Punjab by the petitioner under Section , 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant 51 dated 27.04.2023 registered 27 of Arms Act and Sections 21(C) hotropic Substances Act (for short er on) at Police Station Bhikhiwind, .04.2023, a Police party had laid a hen 04 persons were found riding on to stop their vehicles, the driver of d of the vehicle, but the pillion rider, njit Singh @ Raja, took out a pistol M) 2026 oner
dent
ction grant tered 1(C) short ind, aid a g on er of ider, istol AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.06 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-55509- and fired 03 shots was identified as S identified as Harpr Mangal all of who was recovered fro Raja, 700 grams Mangal Singh @ taken into custody above named accu @ Happy suffere Kuldeep Singh @ he had supplied th 29.04.2023. He present petitioner vehicles and 1 K Kuldeep Singh. presence was sec arrested in this cas effect that he wa accused Kuldeep S Investigation now is facing trial for c 3. It is a falsely implicated accused which can -2025 (O&M) 2 shots with intent to kill them. The d ed as Sukhbir Singh @ Sukh. The dri Harpreet Singh @ Happy and the pill of whom were apprehended. On cond red from the conscious possession of rams of heroin was recovered from gh @ Manga and one .32 bore pisto ustody which was used by the accuse d accused were formally arrested. T uffered a disclosure statement on th gh @ Saba was nominated as addition lied the contraband to him. The said K He too suffered disclosure stateme itioner was nominated as additional d 1 KG 398 Grams of heroin was The present petitioner was in cus as secured by way of production w his case on 15.06.2024. He too suffer he was involved in smuggling of t ldeep Singh @ Saba and had given on n now stands completed and the petiti l for commission of aforementioned o It is argued by learned counsel for t licated in this case on the basis of di ich cannot be considered to be admiss The driver of the bullet motorcycle he driver of the second vehicle was he pillion rider was Mangal Singh @ n conducting search, 1 Kg of heroin ion of the accused Ranjit Singh @ from the possession of co-accused pistol with live cartridge was also accused Ranjit Singh @ Raja. The ed. The co-accused Harpreet Singh on the basis of which the accused dditional accused on the ground that said Kuldeep Singh was arrested on tatement on the basis of which the itional accused. Recovery of 03 was effected from the above said in custody in some other case. His tion warrants and he was formally suffered disclosure statement to the g of the contraband alongwith the ven one pistol .32 bore to the latter. petitioner alongwith the co-accused oned offences. l for the petitioner that he has been s of disclosure statement of the co- dmissible in evidence. No recovery cycle was h @ eroin h @ used also The ingh used that d on the f 03 said His ally o the the atter. used been - very AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.06 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-55509- has been effected the commission of was in custody in involvement in thi him, as such this will take considera examined so far. bail. 4. Status counsel has argu petitioner and the accused, the petitio 5. This parties. 6. The p contraband alongw of .32 bore to the armed weapon wa basis of disclosure of the co-accused petitioner. In Tofa observed by Hon Section 67 of ND independent mater -2025 (O&M) 3 ected from him. There is no material sion of the subject offences. He, even ody in some other case and, therefore t in this case. He is on bail in most of h this cannot be a ground to deny the nsiderable time to conclude as only 03 far. It is, thus, argued that the petitio Status report and custody certificate h argued that keeping in view the nd the gravity of the allegations as le petitioner does not deserve to be relea This Court has heard the rival sub The petitioner is alleged to be invol alongwith the accused and further alleg to the co-accused Kuldeep Singh @ S on was recovered from him. He was losure statement of the co-accused. ccused, he used to source the con Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil N Hon’ble Apex Court that the discl of NDPS Act, are inadmissible in ev t material. While the veracity of the di aterial on record to connect him with even at the time of the occurrence refore, there was no question of his of the cases as registered against ny the benefit of bail to him. Trial nly 03 out of 27 witnesses have been petitioner deserves to be released on icate have been filed. Learned State the criminal antecedents of the leveled against him and the co- e released on bail. al submissions made by both the involved in the business of sale of r alleged to have supplied one pistol h @ Saba. No contraband or illicit e was nominated in this case on the As per the disclosure statement he contraband and arms from the il Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, it was disclosure statements made under in evidence unless corroborated by the disclosure statement against the with ence f his ainst Trial been d on State the - the le of istol illicit n the ment the was nder d by t the AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.06 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-55509- petitioner will be cannot be ignored petitioner was arre to connect the pet connected with the has been comple commission of su for a period of ove to be concluded in been examined so account of delay i the light of Sectio upon the observa Hussain v. State held that grant of fettered under Sec A of Cr.P.C. whic that jails are overc appalling. The da likely to be harde Manmandal and (Criminal) No.865 of Odisha, 2023 L extended benefit o period by observ -2025 (O&M) 4 ill be tested during the course of tr gnored that no recovery was ever effe as arrested on 15.06.2024. There is no the petitioner either with the subject ith the co-accused in any manner at t ompleted. The allegations prima of subject offences against him. How of over 01 year, 07 months and 18 day ded in near future as only 03 out of 2 ned so far. It is well settled propositio elay in trial and long period of incarc Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Relianc bservations made by Hon’ble Apex tate (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC On ant of bail on account of undue delay er Section 37 of the NDPS Act, given . which is applicable to offence under e overcrowded and their living condit he danger of unjustified imprisonm hardened rather than reformed. Relia and Another v. State of West Be 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 of trial, however, at this stage, it er effected from the petitioner. The re is nothing on record, at this stage, bject crime or to show that he was er at the relevant time. Investigation prima facie make out a case for . However, he has been in custody days. Trial is obviously not going ut of 27 prosecution witnesses have position of law that grant of bail on incarceration is to be considered in eliance in this regard can be placed pex Court in Mohd. Muslim @ OnLine SC 352, wherein it was e delay in trial cannot be said to be given the imperative of Section 436- under the Act. It was also observed conditions are, more often than not, isonment is that inmates are more . Reliance can also be placed upon t 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 e, it The tage, was ation for tody oing have n ed in laced @ was to be - rved not, more upon ion ate t had long most AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.06 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-55509- 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 8. Simil v. Central Bureau and inordinate del considered the cor including Section 436A (which requ not concluded wit would apply.
9. In t Crminal Appeal quantity of narcoti -2025 (O&M) 5 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 o 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.
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 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 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 and utory of ently ction r bail early ourt n of f her ntil ation hich ents, ction ial is 1973 an rcial nefit AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.06 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-55509- 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 18 da out of 27 witnesse petitioner is not lik show that if releas abscond. 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 -2025 (O&M) 6 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 18 days, the trial is not likely to be c itnesses have been examined so far. T not likely to serve any fruitful purpose released on bail, the petitioner will no 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. 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, 07 to be concluded in near future as 03 far. The continued detention of the urpose; there is nothing on record to will not participate in the trial or will 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 years LP gal 72 esent t the r, 07 s 03 f the rd to will hat a , the ct to rned t the g an AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.06 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-55509- 14. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 15. Since any, is rendered in 05.02.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 7 It is, however, clarified that the obse 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
  
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
l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.06 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.