CRM-M-26815 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 237 Gopal State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. petitioner under Section seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No. under Section 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) and 427 of IPC were added later on) at Police Station STF, Phase Nagar. The previous petitions have been dismissed as withdrawn. 2. petition are that the petitioner, while coming in a car bearing registration number HR-01-AV intoxicating tablets of Tramadol was effected from him. Since he could not produce any valid license or permit to keep in his possession the recovered drugs, he was forma 26815-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Versus Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate and Ms. Manjot Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) The instant one is the fifth petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No. under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, (for short ‘NDPS Act’) (Section 27 of the NDPS Act and Sections 279 and 427 of IPC were added later on) at Police Station STF, Phase . The previous petitions have been dismissed as withdrawn. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that on 01.02.2022, on the basis of secret information, the petitioner, while coming in a car bearing registration number AV-6517, was apprehended by a police party and recovery of 64400 intoxicating tablets of Tramadol was effected from him. Since he could not produce any valid license or permit to keep in his possession the recovered drugs, he was formally arrested at the spot. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-26815-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.08.2025 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate and Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab. petition that has been filed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 24 dated 01.02.2022, registered Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, (Section 27 of the NDPS Act and Sections 279 and 427 of IPC were added later on) at Police Station STF, Phase-4, SAS . The previous petitions have been dismissed as withdrawn. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this on the basis of secret information, the petitioner, while coming in a car bearing registration number 6517, was apprehended by a police party and recovery of 64400 intoxicating tablets of Tramadol was effected from him. Since he could not produce any valid license or permit to keep in his possession the recovered lly arrested at the spot. After completion of necessary -1- 2025 (O&M) .2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent has been filed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , registered Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, (Section 27 of the NDPS Act and Sections 279 4, SAS Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this on the basis of secret information, the petitioner, while coming in a car bearing registration number 6517, was apprehended by a police party and recovery of 64400 intoxicating tablets of Tramadol was effected from him. Since he could not produce any valid license or permit to keep in his possession the recovered After completion of necessary MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.13 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26815 investigation and usual formalities, presented trial for commission of afore 3. has been falsely implicated in this case. Act were not complied with. far back and prosecution witnesses, only witnesses are still to be examined, as given up, which means that co petitioner is in custody since bail. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on regular bail. 4. State counsel has submitted that keeping in view the gravity of t levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail. is urged that 5. and have also gone through the record carefully. 6. police party and recovery of The quantity of the alleged contraband quantity. However, a perusal of the record reveals that challan was presented way back 26815-2025 (O&M) investigation and usual formalities, challan presented on 17.06.2022 in the Court and presently, the petitioner is facing ial for commission of aforementioned offence Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with. Even otherwise, investigation stands completed and challan was presented on 17.06.2022 prosecution witnesses, only 10 witnesses have been examined so far and 06 witnesses are still to be examined, as 02 given up, which means that conclusion of trial is likely petitioner is in custody since 01.02.2022 barring small period of his interim No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on regular bail. Status report has been filed by the respondent State counsel has submitted that keeping in view the gravity of t levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail. is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable and have also gone through the record carefully. As per the allegations, the petitioner police party and recovery of 64400 intoxicating tablets The quantity of the alleged contraband However, a perusal of the record reveals that was presented way back on 17.06.2022, its conclusion would still take challan under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was in the Court and presently, the petitioner is facing offences. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner Mandatory provisions of the NDPS Even otherwise, investigation stands completed s presented on 17.06.2022. However, out of total 18 witnesses have been examined so far and 06 02 prosecution witnesses have been nclusion of trial is likely to take time. The 01.02.2022 barring small period of his interim No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on regular bail. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has submitted that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail. Hence, it ition is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the record carefully. the petitioner was apprehended by the 64400 intoxicating tablets was effected from him The quantity of the alleged contraband obviously falls under commercial However, a perusal of the record reveals that despite of the fact that 17.06.2022, its conclusion would still take -2- under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was in the Court and presently, the petitioner is facing Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner Mandatory provisions of the NDPS Even otherwise, investigation stands completed However, out of total 18 witnesses have been examined so far and 06 prosecution witnesses have been to take time. The 01.02.2022 barring small period of his interim No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the Learned he allegations Hence, it length by the him. commercial the fact that 17.06.2022, its conclusion would still take MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.13 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26815 a considerable time as 06 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. goes to show that t the same to conclude in near future about 03 years and State of Odisha : 2023 Live L incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo crea 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act Supreme Court in RCR (Criminal) 172 Hussain vs. State (NCT of wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court, while granting concession of regular bail to an accused, from whom commercial quantity of the contraband was allegedly recovered, has held that cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the also be made to the authority cited as Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022(10) SCC 51 observations were made placed upon Bureau : (2022) 2 RCR (Criminal) 706 Court, after considering issue with respect to achieving bala to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the rigors enumerated under Section 37 of the convict/accused is not precluded from claiming bail invoking parameters of 26815-2025 (O&M) a considerable time as 06 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. show that the trial is substantially delayed and there is no likelihood of the same to conclude in near future. The petitioner is in long incarceration of years and 06 months. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Odisha : 2023 Live Law (SC) 533 incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo crea 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh : 2024 (4) RCR (Criminal) 172. Reliance can also be placed Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) : 2023 AIR(SC) 1648 2023 AIR(SC) 1648 Hon’ble Supreme Court, while granting concession of regular bail to an accused, from whom commercial quantity of the contraband was allegedly recovered, has held that grant of bail on cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the also be made to the authority cited as Satender Kumar Antil v Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022(10) SCC 51 observations were made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Reliance can also be placed upon the authority cited as Bhupender Singh v Bureau : (2022) 2 RCR (Criminal) 706, wherein a Division Bench of this after considering issue with respect to achieving bala to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the rigors enumerated under Section 37 of the convict/accused is not precluded from claiming bail invoking parameters of a considerable time as 06 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. delayed and there is no likelihood of . The petitioner is in long incarceration of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rabi Prakash vs. aw (SC) 533 has held that the prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh : 2024 (4) Reliance can also be placed upon Mohd. Muslim @ 2023 AIR(SC) 1648 2023 AIR(SC) 1648 Hon’ble Supreme Court, while granting concession of regular bail to an accused, from whom commercial quantity of the contraband was allegedly the ground of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reference can Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022(10) SCC 51, wherein similar by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Reliance can also be Bhupender Singh vs. Narcotic Control , wherein a Division Bench of this after considering issue with respect to achieving balance between right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the rigors enumerated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, has held that convict/accused is not precluded from claiming bail invoking parameters of -3- a considerable time as 06 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. It delayed and there is no likelihood of . The petitioner is in long incarceration of Rabi Prakash vs. he prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the ted under Section Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh : 2024 (4) Mohd. Muslim @ 2023 AIR(SC) 1648 2023 AIR(SC) 1648, Hon’ble Supreme Court, while granting concession of regular bail to an accused, from whom commercial quantity of the contraband was allegedly e delay in trial Reference can s. Central wherein similar by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Reliance can also be s. Narcotic Control , wherein a Division Bench of this nce between right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the held that convict/accused is not precluded from claiming bail invoking parameters of MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.13 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26815 Article 21 of the Constitution of India Section 37 of the trial is substantially delayed. facts and circumstances authorities, would be served by keeping the present petition regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail in case t is found involved in any other subsequent case. subject to a condition that the petitioner will mark his presence before the SHO of the Police Station concerned on first Monday of every month at 11:00 AM. 7. for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 12.05.2025 Waseem Ansari Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 26815-2025 (O&M) Article 21 of the Constitution of India de Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In the present case, apparently and evidently, trial is substantially delayed. Therefore, keeping in view facts and circumstances and also the ratio of law as laid down in the aforecited authorities, this Court is of the considered opinion that would be served by keeping the petitioner the present petition is allowed. The petitioner regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail in case t is found involved in any other subsequent case. subject to a condition that the petitioner will mark his presence before the SHO of the Police Station concerned on first Monday of every month at 11:00 It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 12.05.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable de-hors the stringent provisions of In the present case, apparently and evidently, Therefore, keeping in view the aforementioned ratio of law as laid down in the aforecited this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose the petitioner in custody anymore. Accordingly, is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal bonds and two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail in case the petitioner is found involved in any other subsequent case. This order shall further be subject to a condition that the petitioner will mark his presence before the SHO of the Police Station concerned on first Monday of every month at 11:00 It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No -4- the stringent provisions of In the present case, apparently and evidently, the the aforementioned ratio of law as laid down in the aforecited no useful purpose Accordingly, is ordered to be released on to the However, it will be petitioner This order shall further be subject to a condition that the petitioner will mark his presence before the SHO of the Police Station concerned on first Monday of every month at 11:00 It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.13 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document