IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 111 Kulwinder State of Punjab [ CORAM: Present : SURYA PARTAP SINGH under Section 483 of been filed for the commission of of Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’ Ludhiana. 2. suspicious conduct, a police party headed by apprehended the petitioner and from the polythene bag being carried by him, 870 tablets of recovered. CRM-M-7328-2025 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Kulwinder Singh @Bindi VERSUS Punjab CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Mr. Jitender Singh Dadwal, Advocate Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (oral) This petition for bail is the first under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita been filed with regard to a case arising out of for the commission of offence punishable under Section Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’, Police Station Sadar Khanna . The abovementioned FIR came into being suspicious conduct, a police party headed by apprehended the petitioner and from the polythene bag being carried by him, 870 tablets of tramadol hydrochloride recovered. (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-7328-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 05.03.2026 ..... Petitioner VERSUS ..... Respondent SURYA PARTAP SINGH Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ***** first petition, filed by the petitioner Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.119 dated 18.06.2021 punishable under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred to as Sadar Khanna, Police District Khanna, District he abovementioned FIR came into being when on the basis of suspicious conduct, a police party headed by ‘SI Sukhwinder Pal Singh’ apprehended the petitioner and from the polythene bag being carried by him, tramadol hydrochloride (total weight 350.6 gms) were (O&M) .2026 Petitioner ..... Respondent petitioner has 18.06.2021, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred to as Khanna, District when on the basis of Singh’ apprehended the petitioner and from the polythene bag being carried by him, were GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.05 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3. abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were performed, and further investigation taken up. 4. 5. on behalf of respondent hereby dispensed with. certificate of the petition has been filed by the State opposed the present petition 6. 7. 8. within the ambit of commercial quantity, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352 abovementioned case, on account of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered under Section-37 of the NDPS Act, given the imperative of Section 436 applicable to offences under the Act. 9. Supreme Court of India in the case of CRM-M-7328-2025 (O&M) 2 It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were performed, and further investigation taken up. Notice of motion. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. has been filed by the State. However, the learned State Counsel has orally the present petition. Heard. The record has been perused carefully. Since the recovery of contraband in the within the ambit of commercial quantity, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352 abovementioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that grant of bail on account of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered under 37 of the NDPS Act, given the imperative of Section 436 applicable to offences under the Act. In this regard it is also relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Manmandal and Another v. State of (O&M) 2 s the case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were performed, and further investigation taken up. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appears State. Hence service of notice upon the State is The learned State Counsel has filed custody er. The same be taken on record. No formal reply the learned State Counsel has orally The record has been perused carefully. Since the recovery of contraband in the case in hand comes within the ambit of commercial quantity, the principles laid down by the ‘Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352 are relevant. In the Supreme Court has held that grant of bail on account of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered under 37 of the NDPS Act, given the imperative of Section 436-A which is relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble Manmandal and Another v. State of s the case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were appears State. Hence service of notice upon the State is The learned State Counsel has filed custody o formal reply the learned State Counsel has orally case in hand comes principles laid down by the ‘Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State’ e relevant. In the Supreme Court has held that grant of bail on account of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered under A which is relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble Manmandal and Another v. State of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.05 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document West Bengal on 14.09.2023 1109, extended the benefit of bail to the accused, who had been incarcerated for a period of almost 2 time. The above prolonged incarceration gener fundamental right guaranteed under Article such a situation, the constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo contained under Section 10. case of ‘Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr.’ Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025 Section 37 of NDPS Act will not be a bar for consideri accused for bail as it comes with a condition that the prosecution would press for an early completion of trial. In the above Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that appellant who was being prosecuted for being in poss substance, was entitled for bail in view of her incarceration for a period of 19 months. 11. Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of I CRM-M-7328-2025 (O&M) 3 West Bengal’, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on 14.09.2023 and ‘Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha , extended the benefit of bail to the accused, who had been incarcerated for a period of almost 2-3 years and the trial was likely to take considerable time. The above-mentioned benefit has been given by observing that prolonged incarceration generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article such a situation, the constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo contained under Section-37 of the NDPS Act. In addition to above, in a recently pronounced verdict in the Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr.’ Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court Section 37 of NDPS Act will not be a bar for consideri accused for bail as it comes with a condition that the prosecution would press for an early completion of trial. In the above Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that appellant who was being prosecuted for being in possession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, was entitled for bail in view of her incarceration for a period of 19 months. Similarly in another case i.e. in the case of Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India expressed the opinion that Section 436A of (O&M) 3 , Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha’, 2023 SCC Online , extended the benefit of bail to the accused, who had been incarcerated 3 years and the trial was likely to take considerable mentioned benefit has been given by observing that ally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article-21 of the Constitution, and in such a situation, the constitutional principles must override the statutory 37 of the NDPS Act. tion to above, in a recently pronounced verdict in the Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr.’ Criminal Appeal , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act will not be a bar for considering the case of an accused for bail as it comes with a condition that the prosecution would press for an early completion of trial. In the above-mentioned case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that appellant who was being ession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, was entitled for bail in view of her incarceration for a period of Similarly in another case i.e. in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation’ (2022) 10 SCC 51 prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The expressed the opinion that Section 436A of , Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided SC , extended the benefit of bail to the accused, who had been incarcerated 3 years and the trial was likely to take considerable mentioned benefit has been given by observing that ally militates against the most precious 21 of the Constitution, and in such a situation, the constitutional principles must override the statutory tion to above, in a recently pronounced verdict in the Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr.’ Criminal Appeal rs of ng the case of an accused for bail as it comes with a condition that the prosecution would mentioned case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that appellant who was being ession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, was entitled for bail in view of her incarceration for a period of Satender Kumar prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The expressed the opinion that Section 436A of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.05 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods would apply 12. Criminal Appeal No.4911 of 2025 quantity of narcotic substance the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India accorded the benefit of bail to the accused in view of prolonged incarceration for period of 02 years and 08 months of the accused. 13. No.15699 Bengal’ and in the case of Appeal No.4872 of 2025 14. Bengal’ SLP (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023, the benefit of bail has been accorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to an accused, who was found in the possession CRM-M-7328-2025 (O&M) 4 the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods would apply in such cases. In the case of ‘Ismail Khan @ Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan Criminal Appeal No.4911 of 2025 with regard to recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic substance the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India accorded the benefit of bail to the accused in view of prolonged incarceration for period of 02 years and 08 months of the accused. The similar benefit has been taken in another appeal i.e. No.15699-2025 titled as ‘Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK vs. The State of West and in the case of ‘Pamesh Arora vs. UT Chandigarh Appeal No.4872 of 2025. In the case of ‘Hasanujjaman & Ors. V/s The State of West Bengal’ SLP (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023, the benefit of bail has been accorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to an accused, who was found in the possession of 115 bottles of phensedyl, by observing that: a) the petitioner was in custody for a period of one year and three months; b) the investigation in that case was complete and charge had been filed, but charges were yet to be framed; c) the conclusion of trial would take some time; and d) the petitioner had no criminal antecedents. (O&M) 4 which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods han @ Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan with regard to recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic substance the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India accorded the benefit of bail to the accused in view of prolonged incarceration for period of 02 years and 08 months of the accused. The similar benefit has been taken in another appeal i.e. SLP Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK vs. The State of West Pamesh Arora vs. UT Chandigarh’ Criminal In the case of ‘Hasanujjaman & Ors. V/s The State of West Bengal’ SLP (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023, the benefit of bail has been accorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to an accused, who was found in the of 115 bottles of phensedyl, by observing that:- the petitioner was in custody for a period of one year and three the investigation in that case was complete and charge-sheet had been filed, but charges were yet to be framed; sion of trial would take some time; and the petitioner had no criminal antecedents. which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods] han @ Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan’ with regard to recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic substance the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India accorded the benefit of bail to the accused in view of prolonged incarceration for a SLP Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK vs. The State of West Criminal In the case of ‘Hasanujjaman & Ors. V/s The State of West Bengal’ SLP (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023, the benefit of bail has been accorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to an accused, who was found in the the petitioner was in custody for a period of one year and three sheet GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.05 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that there is substantial compliance of Section 15. The State of West Bengal’ SLP(Crl) No.12788/2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India afforded the benefit of bail to the accused, who was found in possession of 10,000 ml of codeine phosph period of one and a half year, by considering that conclusion of trial would take long time. 16. in the light of above i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi) CRM-M-7328-2025 (O&M) 5 In view of abovementioned prevailing factors, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that there is substantial compliance of Section-37 of NDPS Act. Similarly, in the case of ‘Nandlal Mondal @Abhay Mondal V/s The State of West Bengal’ SLP(Crl) No.12788/2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India afforded the benefit of bail to the accused, who was found in possession of 10,000 ml of codeine phosph period of one and a half year, by considering that conclusion of trial would take long time. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed in the light of above-mentioned principles of law, it i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of than one year and eight months ii) that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; iii) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future of twelve prosecution witnesses, only so far; iv) that the detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not likely to serve any purpose; v) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and vi) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial. (O&M) 5 In view of abovementioned prevailing factors, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that there is substantial Similarly, in the case of ‘Nandlal Mondal @Abhay Mondal V/s The State of West Bengal’ SLP(Crl) No.12788/2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India afforded the benefit of bail to the accused, who was found in possession of 10,000 ml of codeine phosphate, and was in custody for a period of one and a half year, by considering that conclusion of trial would If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed mentioned principles of law, it transpires that:- that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more months; nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, as out prosecution witnesses, only three have been examined detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, may tamper with the evidence or influence the that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial. In view of abovementioned prevailing factors, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that there is substantial Similarly, in the case of ‘Nandlal Mondal @Abhay Mondal V/s The State of West Bengal’ SLP(Crl) No.12788/2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India afforded the benefit of bail to the accused, who was found in ate, and was in custody for a period of one and a half year, by considering that conclusion of trial would If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed more nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession , as out have been examined detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, may tamper with the evidence or influence the that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.05 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 17. Hon’ble Supreme Court Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamen Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to us exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by ever country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case”. 18. India in the case of ‘ Investigation and Another’, ( CRM-M-7328-2025 (O&M) 6 In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a erson is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to us exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by ever country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case”. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another’, (2022) 10 SCC 51, (O&M) 6 In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the in the case of “Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a erson is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and tal postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of 2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the in the case of “Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a erson is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and tal postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a e) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large y High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the Court of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of are also relevant in this case. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.05 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that “ in criminal cases in India weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody wo case of grave injustice 19. Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322 India has observed that “ incarceration of six definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abo bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently 20. fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedur CRM-M-7328-2025 (O&M) 7 In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that “ in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody wo case of grave injustice”. Recently, in the case of ‘ Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322 India has observed that “if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abo bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently”. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of (O&M) 7 In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that “the rate of conviction is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of if an accused is to get a final verdict after to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed o elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, e enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of the rate of conviction is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. uld be a Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of if an accused is to get a final verdict after to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the vementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed o elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, e enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.05 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in Another”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354 21. involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 22. case, the present petition is hereby to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the ab shall be subject to following conditions: (i) (ii) (iii) 05.03.202 Gaurav Thakur CRM-M-7328-2025 (O&M) 8 India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in “Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the etition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the sfaction of learned trial Court. However the ab subject to following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such to the Court or to any other authority; (ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prio of the trial Court. 2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable (O&M) 8 India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the without commenting anything on the merits of the allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the sfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts ourt or to any other authority; that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Yes/No India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the without commenting anything on the merits of the . The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the concession that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; r permission ) GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.05 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document