CRM-M-41715- IN THE H (216) RAJPAL @ RAJ STATE OF HAR CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. H MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 439 of C Nagarik Suraksha FIR No.73 dated Drugs and Psycho Station Panipat SD withdrawn on 16 petitioner Section well as headnote o 2. As p information to the of sale of prohibi -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH RAJPAL RATHI Versus
HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Kawalpreet Singh Virk, Advocate Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant one is the second petition of Cr.P.C. (which is pari materia raksha Sanhita, 2023) for grant of reg ated 10.05.2024 registered under Sect Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( ipat SDR, District Panipat. The previ 16.01.2025. On the oral reques ection 29 of NDPS is ordered to be note of this petition. As per the allegations, on 09.05.20 to the effect that the present petitione ibited narcotic injections and had JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-41715-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 12.02.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA
vocate for the petitioner petition filed by the petitioner under eria of Section 483 of Bharatiya regular bail in case arising out of er Sections 22(C) and 27 of Narcotic 1985 (for short “NDPS”) at Police e previous petition was dismissed as request of learned counsel for the to be added in the prayer clause as .05.2024, on the basis of a secret titioner was indulged in the business d had stored a huge quantity of the M) 2026 oner
dent
nder atiya ut of cotic olice ed as r the se as ecret iness f the AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.13 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-41715- same in his residen raiding party was registration of FI recovered 500 in Ozatcel and 1600 produce any permi were taken into c Investigation now 3. It is falsely implicated previous petition much progress in examined so far. and 08 months. He has clean ante petition deserves 4. Per c and specific alle Buprenorphine an possession. The There are chance benefit of bail. It released on bail. -2025 (O&M) 2 residential house and the same could b ty was formed. Intimation was se of FIR. The Policy party reached 00 injections of Buprenorphine, 14 1600 injections of Pentazocine Pep permit or licence for possessing the s into custody by the Police. The pet n now stands concluded. It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case. A false recovery ha ion was dismissed as withdrawn. in the trial as none out of 17 pr far. He is in prolonged incarceratio His continued detention would n antecedents. With these broad sub s to be allowed. Per contra, learned State counsel has c allegations against the petitioner ine and Pentazocine injections were The rigors of Section 37 of NDPS chances of petitioner’s committing ail. It is, therefore, stressed that the pe d be recovered from his house, a as sent to the Police Station for eached at the informed place and ne, 1400 injections of Pentazocine ne Peplin. The petitioner failed to g the same. The recovered injections he petitioner was formally arrested. l for the petitioner that he has been very has been planted upon him. His awn. However, there has not been 17 prosecution witnesses has been eration for a period of over 01 year ould not serve any useful purpose. ad submissions, it is urged that the sel has argued that there are serious itioner. Commercial quantity of were recovered from his conscious DPS Act are attracted in this case. tting similar offences, if extended the petitioner does not deserve to be a for and cine d to tions . been His been been year pose. the rious y of cious case. nded to be AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.13 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-41715- 5. This C for both the parties 6. The p months. It is well accused furnished opinion of this Co Court has observ custody for an i considered on its that every day spe 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. Relian Hon’ble Apex Co 2023 SCC OnLin undue delay in tria Act, given the im offence under the living conditions a -2025 (O&M) 3 This Court has heard the rival submis parties at considerable length. The petitioner is in custody for ove s well settled proposition of law that e ished a ground to seek concession of this Court, is a ground to move for b bserved in a catena of cases that a an indefinite period of time, and on its own merits even if it is filed rep ay spent in custody can provide a ne 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 placed u x Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Huss 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 ubmissions made by learned counsel over a period of 01 year and 08 that each day spent in custody by an ion of bail to him. This factor, in the for bail afresh. The Hon’ble Apex that an accused cannot be kept in , and the bail application can be led repeatedly. It has also been held e a new cause of action for filing a 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 laced upon the observations made by 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 that jails are overcrowded and their appalling. The danger of unjustified unsel d 08 y an n the pex pt in n be held ing a f the lance tem. ttled It is l and f the e by hi), nt of DPS le to their tified AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.13 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-41715- imprisonment is reformed. Relianc of West Bengal, S 14.09.2023 and R wherein the Hon’b who had been in incarceration milit under Article 21 o principles must ov the NDPS Act.
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 -2025 (O&M) 4 nt is that inmates are more likely eliance can also be placed upon Man al, Special Leave Petition (Criminal nd Rabi Prakash v. State of Odis Hon’ble Supreme Court had extended een incarcerated for a long period n militated against the most precious le 21 of the Constitution and in such ust override the statutory embargo c 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.
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 likely to be hardened rather than Manmandal and Another v. State inal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533, tended benefit of bail to the accused eriod by observing that prolonged ecious fundamental right guaranteed such a situation, the constitutional argo contained under Section 37 of 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 than tate on 33, used nged teed ional 7 of of ently ction r bail rly ourt n of f her ntil ation hich ents, ction AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.13 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-41715- 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 21 da prosecution witne petitioner is not lik show that if releas abscond. 12. In vie case is made out f petition is allowed -2025 (O&M) 5 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 days, the trial is not likely to be c witness has 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 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 nciples of law, it transpires that the ration for a period of 01 year, 08 to be concluded in near future as no 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 ial is 1973 an rcial nefit years LP gal 72 esent t the 8 no f the rd to will hat a , the ct to AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.13 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-41715- his furnishing pers trial Court/Chief J 13. In the petitioner, it shall application seekin 14. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 15. Since any, is rendered in 12.02.2026 Amit Sharma


-2025 (O&M) 6 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 
 

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
rned t the g an l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.13 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.