Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 5432 (PNJ)

BUDHU ALIAS RAMU v. STATE OF PUNJAB

CRM-M/71317/2025 · 2026-02-03

Manisha Batra

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-71317- IN THE H (240) BUDHU @ RAM STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Mr. A Mr. R Ms. S MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 483 of Bh for grant of regul registered under Substances Act, 19 SBS Nagar (Naw withdrawn vide or 2. As pe co-accused-Emil B which was taken arrested. Investiga co-accused is facin -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH RAMU Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Mr. Parminder Singh Sekhon, Sr. Adv Mr. Amardeep Singh, Advocate and Mr. R.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitio Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab ****  BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant one is the second petition of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh f regular bail in case arising out of nder Sections 18 and 29 of Narco Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS”) at Police (Nawanshahar). His previous pet ide order dated 10.12.2024 passed by s per the allegations, on 17.04.2023 Emil Bodra was found in conscious p taken into custody. The petitioner a vestigation now stands completed and is facing trial for commission of aforem JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-71317-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 03.02.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA  r. Advocate with e and petitioner petition filed by the petitioner under a Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) ut of FIR No.32 dated 17.04.2023 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Police Station Sadar Banga, District us petition had been dismissed as ed by this Court. 4.2023, the petitioner alongwith the cious possession of 13 Kg of opium oner and co-accused were formally ted and the petitioner alongwith the aforementioned offences. M) 2026 nder ) 2023 ropic strict d as h the pium ally h the AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.04 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-71317- 3. It is a falsely implicated and nine months. considerable time examined, so far. by his continued d on bail. 4. Per c quantity of contra his committing sim therefore, argued t 5. This parties. 6. The p found in consciou custody since 17 commission of su record that there a will take consider This factor, in the Hon’ble Apex Cou kept in custody fo considered on its that every day spe -2025 (O&M) 2 It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case. He is in custody f nths. False recovery has been planted e time to conclude as only 05 out o far. He has clean antecedents. No us nued detention. It is, therefore, argued Per contra, learned State Counsel contraband was recovered from the pe ing similar offences or absconding, if gued that he does not deserve to be rel This Court has heard the rival sub The petitioner alongwith the co-acc nscious possession of commercial qu 17.04.2023. The allegations prim of subject offences against him. How there are no chances of conclusion of nsiderable time. The petitioner has re in the opinion of this Court, is a groun ex Court has observed in a catena of c ody for an indefinite period of time, a on its own merits even if it is filed rep ay spent in custody can provide a ne l for the petitioner that he has been tody for a period of over two years lanted upon him. The trial will take 5 out of 13 witnesses have been . No useful purpose would be served rgued that he deserves to be released unsel has argued that commercial the petitioner. There are chances of ing, if extended benefit of bail. It is, be released on bail. al submissions made by both the accused is alleged to have been ial quantity of contraband. He is in s prima facie make out a case for . However, it is apparent from the ion of the trial in near future and it has remained in custody since long. ground to move for bail afresh. The a of cases that an accused cannot be time, and the bail application can be led repeatedly. It has also been held e a new cause of action for filing a been years take been rved ased rcial es of It is, the been is in e for the nd it long. . The ot be n be held ing a AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.04 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-71317- bail application u broader approach the rights of the a Prolonged detentio principle of law is well settled propo long period of inc NDPS Act. Relia by Hon’ble Apex 2023 SCC OnLin undue delay in tria Act, given the im offence under the living conditions a imprisonment is reformed. Relianc of West Bengal, S on 14.09.2023 an 110, wherein the accused who had prolonged incarce guaranteed under constitutional prin Section 37 of the N -2025 (O&M) 3 tion under certain circumstances. Th roach emphasizing that law prefers ba f the accused with the requirements o etention itself is a ground for reconsid law is that detention prior to trial sho proposition of law that grant of bail o of incarceration is to be considered in Reliance in this regard can be place Apex Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hus Line SC 352, wherein it was held t in trial cannot be said to be fettered u the imperative of Section 436-A of C er the Act. It was also observed that j itions are, more often than not, appall nt is that inmates are more likely eliance can also be placed upon Man gal, Special Leave Petition (Crimin and Rabdi Prakash v. State of O in the Hon’ble Supreme Court had e o had been incarcerated for a lon ncarceration militated against the mo under Article 21 of the Constitution al principles must override the statut f the NDPS Act. es. This principle is a part of the fers bail over jail, aiming to balance ents of the criminal justice system. consideration of bail since the settled ial should not become punitive. It is bail on account of delay in trial and ered in the light of Section 37 of the placed upon the observations made Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), held that grant of bail on account of ttered under Section 37 of the NDPS A of Cr.P.C. which is applicable to at jails are overcrowded and their appalling. The danger of unjustified likely to be hardened rather than Manmandal and Another v. State iminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided of Odisha, 2023 SCC Online SC had extended benefit of bail to the a long period by observing that he most precious fundamental right itution and in such a situation, the statutory embargo contained under f the lance tem. ttled It is l and f the ade hi), nt of DPS le to their tified than tate ided SC o the that right , the nder AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.04 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-71317- 7. Relia Chhattishgarh & pronounced verdic 37 of NDPS Act w as it comes with completion of tria India held that ap commercial quant incarceration for a 8. Simil v. Central Bureau and inordinate de India, which con several enactment opinion that Sectio on bail if the tria Procedure Code, 1 9. In th Crminal Appeal quantity of narcoti benefit of bail to t 02 years and 08 m 10. The No.15699-2025 tit -2025 (O&M) 4 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 abovementioned case t hat appellant who was being prosecu 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 ate delay engaged the attention of th h considered the correct approach t ctments, including Section 37 NDPS Section 436A (which requires inter a he trial is not concluded within speci ode, 1973 would apply. In the case of Ismail Khan @ Pa eal No.4911 of 2025 with regard narcotic substance the Hon’ble Suprem ail to the accused in view of prolonge 08 months of the accused. The similar benefit has been taken 25 titled as Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK 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 case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of rosecuted 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 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of oach towards bail, with respect to DPS Act. The court expressed the inter alia the accused to be enlarged specified periods) of the Criminal Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan regard to recovery of commercial Supreme Court of India accorded the olonged incarceration for a period of taken in another appeal i.e. SLP SK vs. The State of West Bengal of ently on r bail early rt of n of f her ntil ation rt of ct to d the rged inal an rcial d the d of LP gal AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.04 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-71317- and in the case of of 2025. 11. On an case in the light o petitioner has suf months and 16 da continued detentio there is nothing on participate in the t 12. In vie case is made out f petition is allowed his furnishing per local surety and Magistrate/Duty M -2025 (O&M) 5 ase of Pamesh Arora vs. UT Chandig On analyzing the peculiar facts and light of the aforementioned principle as suffered prolonged incarceration f 16 days, the trial is not likely to be etention of the petitioner is not likely ing on record to show that if released 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 ng personal as well as 02 surety bon and to the satisfaction of the learn uty Magistrate concerned and on the (i) The petitioner shall not di inducement, threat or promise the facts of the case or tamper in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The petitioner shall not circumstance without permiss (iii) The petitioner shall ap Court as and when directed. ndigarh Criminal Appeal No.4872 ts and circumstances of the present nciples of law, it transpires that the tion for a period of 2 year and 09 to be concluded in near future; the likely to serve any fruitful purpose; leased 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 ty bonds, one of which should be a e learned trial Court/Chief Judicial n the following conditions:- not directly or indirectly make any omise to any person acquainted with tamper with the evidence of the case ll not leave the country under any ermission of the learned trial Court. all appear before the learned trial  72 esent t the 09 ; the pose; ll not hat a , the ct to be a icial any with case any trial AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.04 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-71317- 13. CRM-M-71317- 13. In the petitioner, it shall application seekin -2025 (O&M) 6 (iv) The petitioner shall provid be residing after release and without informing the concern (v) The petitioner shall upon phone number to concerned mobile phone switched on all (vi) The petitioner shall app concerned Police Station whe first Monday of every month The concerned SHO in case o shall immediately inform the absence of the petitioner who bail of the petitioner after g heard. (vii) The petitioner shall su furnish details of his cell phon not change his mobile number trial. In the event of there being any FIR t shall be open to the respondent-State seeking cancellation of bail. provide his address where he would se and shall not change the same oncerned IO/SHO. ll upon his release give his mobile erned IO/SHO and shall keep his on all times. all appear before the SHO of the n wherein he is facing trial on the onth and shall record his presence. case of any default by the petitioner m the learned Trial Court about the r who shall be at liberty to cancel the after granting opportunity of being all surrender his passport, if any, ll phone and Aadhaar card, and shall umber(s) during the pendency of the y FIR/complaint lodged against the State to seek redressal by filing an ould same obile his f the the ence. ioner t the l the eing any, shall f the t the g an AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.04 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-71317- 14. It is condition, the Sta the bail before the 15. It is, shall not be constr shall not influence 16. Since any, is rendered in 03.02.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 7 It is further clarified that if the he State shall be at liberty to file an re the trial Court. It is, however, clarified that the ob construed as an expression of opinion luence the outcome of the trial. Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes    f the petitioner violates any bail le an application for cancellation of the observations made hereinabove pinion on the merits of the case and een allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No  bail n of bove and n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.04 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.