CRM-M-28413- 227 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Gurbinder Singh @ Ginder State of Punjab CORAM: Present:- SUMEET GOEL 1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr. P.C.’) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No registered for the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act’), Sections 399, 402 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short ‘Arms Act’ Station Chohla Sahib, District Tarn Taran. 2. accused of being involved in -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH Date of decision: Gurbinder Singh @ Ginder versus Punjab HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Parminder Singh Sekhon, Advocate Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG Punjab. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) Present second petition has been filed under Section Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr. P.C.’) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No registered for the offences punishable under Section Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Sections 399, 402 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short ‘Arms Act’ Chohla Sahib, District Tarn Taran. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-28413-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: July 31, 2025 ….Petitioner ….Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG Punjab. petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr. P.C.’) (Section 483 of the (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.41 dated 02.06.2023, ences punishable under Sections 21, 25 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Sections 399, 402 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short ‘Arms Act’), at Police The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act, IPC and Arms 1 2025 (O&M) , 2025 Petitioner ….Respondent 439 of the of the for grant of , of the (for short ‘NDPS Sections 399, 402 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) at Police an , IPC and Arms MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.31 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-28413- Act involving pistol along with four live cartridges and 270 grams of heroin. 3. is in custody since submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. has further iterated that the petitioner has than 02 years 4. arguing that the allegations raised and, thus, he State counsel has further submitted that rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 30.07.2025 in Court, which is taken on record. 5. the available records of the case. 6. investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 16 prosecution witnesses have till date. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues -2025 (O&M) involving two motorcycles without registration number, one 32 bore pistol along with four live cartridges and 270 grams of heroin. Learned counsel for the petitioner has is in custody since 02.06.2023. Learned counsel submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more 02 years. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition uing that the allegations raised against the petitioner he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate 2025 in Court, which is taken on record. I have heard counsel for the rival the available records of the case. The petitioner was arrested on investigation was carried out and challan was presented on prosecution witnesses have been cited and only The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues 2 two motorcycles without registration number, one 32 bore pistol along with four live cartridges and 270 grams of heroin. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is delayed and thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel suffered incarceration for more . Thus, regular bail is prayed for. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by against the petitioner are serious in nature does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned the instant bail plea is barred by the , and thus, the same ought to be Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate 2025 in Court, which is taken on record. rival parties and have gone through The petitioner was arrested on 02.06.2023 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 29.11.2023. Total and only 03 have been examined The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues 2 two motorcycles without registration number, one 32 bore that the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. and Learned counsel suffered incarceration for more by are serious in nature Learned the instant bail plea is barred by the , and thus, the same ought to be Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate parties and have gone through whereinafter Total been examined The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.31 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-28413- shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1. forth by the petitioner, folly thereof cannot be certificate dated has already suffered incarceration for a period of days. In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands India. 6.2. Punjab passed in upon the ratio Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 311; Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 dated 07.02.2020 titled as “Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas vs. The State of West Bengal”; “Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan vs. The State of West Bengal”, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) -2025 (O&M) shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. A perusal of the zimni orders passed by the forth by the petitioner, indicates that the trial is folly thereof cannot be saddled upon the petitioner. certificate dated 30.07.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the stands diluted in light of the Articl This Court in a judgment titled as passed in CRM-M-64074-2024 (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 311; Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 dated 07.02.2020 titled as “Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas vs. The State of West Bengal”; “Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan vs. The State of West Bengal”, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) 3 shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. orders passed by the trial Court, brought indicates that the trial is indeed procrastinating and upon the petitioner. As per custody .2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 02 years, 01 month and 24 In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the diluted in light of the Article 21 of the Constitution of This Court in a judgment titled as Kulwinder versus State of (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2023 INSC 311; Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 dated 07.02.2020 titled as “Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas vs. The State of West Bengal”; “Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan vs. The State of West Bengal”, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) 3 shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not , at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of brought procrastinating and As per custody .2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner 02 years, 01 month and 24 In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the e 21 of the Constitution of Kulwinder versus State of (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; reported as 2023 INSC 311; Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 dated 07.02.2020 titled as “Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas vs. The State of West Bengal”; “Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan vs. The State of West Bengal”, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.31 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-28413- No.5530-2022 dated 22.08.20 vs. The State of Gujarat”; Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated 05.08.2022 titled as Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma vs. Union of India, and Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024(4) RCR (Criminal) 17 fundamental right to life and liberty, guaranteed and preserved under our prejudice that may result due to impermissible and avoidable delay since pre jail -2025 (O&M) 2022 dated 22.08.2022 titled as “Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh vs. The State of Gujarat”; Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated 05.08.2022 titled as Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma vs. Union of India, and Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024(4) RCR (Criminal) 172; has held, thus: “7.8. The right to a speedy and expeditious trial is not only a vital safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration; to mitigate anxiety and concern accompanying the accusation as well as to curtail any impairment in the ability of an accused to defend himself, but there is an overarching societal interest paving way for a speedy trial. This right has been repeatedly actuated in the recent past and the ratio decidendi of the above-referred to Supreme Court’s judgments have la of decisions opening up new vistas of fundamental rights. The concept of speedy trial is amalgamated into the Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty, guaranteed and preserved under our Constitution. The right to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint imposed at the time of the arrest of the accused and consequent incarceration which continues at all stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any poss prejudice that may result due to impermissible and avoidable delay since the time of the commission of the offence till the criminal proceedings consummate into a finality, could be averted. The speedy trial, early hearing and quick disposal are sine The overcrowded Court-dockets, the heavy volume of work and the resultant pressure on the prosecution and the Police, indubitably keeps the entire criminal jurisprudential mechanism under stress and strain. However, this cannot be an excuse for keeping the sword of Damocles hanging on the accused for an indefinite period of time. It does not serve any credit to the criminal justice system, rather it makes for a sad state of affairs. The guarantee of a speedy trial is in and prevent delay by imposing on the Court and the prosecution an obligation to proceed with the trial with a reasonable dispatch. The guarantee serves a threefold purpose. Firstly, it protects the accused against oppressive pre-trial imprisonment; secondly, it relieves the accused of the anxiety and public suspicion due to unresolved criminal charges and lastly, it protects against the risk that evidence will be lost or memories dimmed by the passage of time, thus, impairing the accused to defend himself. It goes without saying that the consequences of pre-trial detention are grave. Accused, presumed innocent, till proven otherwise, are subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of jail-life, usually under onerous conditions. Equally important, the burden of detention of such an accused frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his family. There is yet another aspect of the matter which deserves consideration at this stage. The allegations i accused being involved in an FIR relating to commercial quantity of 4 22 titled as “Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh vs. The State of Gujarat”; Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated 05.08.2022 titled as Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma vs. Union of India, and Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024(4) RCR The right to a speedy and expeditious trial is not only a vital safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration; to mitigate anxiety and concern accompanying the accusation as well as to curtail lity of an accused to defend himself, but there is an overarching societal interest paving way for a speedy trial. This right has been repeatedly actuated in the recent past and the ratio decidendi of referred to Supreme Court’s judgments have laid down a series of decisions opening up new vistas of fundamental rights. The concept of speedy trial is amalgamated into the Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty, guaranteed and preserved under our The right to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint imposed at the time of the arrest of the accused and consequent incarceration which continues at all stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible prejudice that may result due to impermissible and avoidable delay since the time of the commission of the offence till the criminal proceedings consummate into a finality, could be averted. The speedy trial, early sine qua non of criminal jurisprudence. dockets, the heavy volume of work and the resultant pressure on the prosecution and the Police, indubitably keeps the entire criminal jurisprudential mechanism under stress and strain. s cannot be an excuse for keeping the sword of Damocles hanging on the accused for an indefinite period of time. It does not serve any credit to the criminal justice system, rather it makes for a sad state of affairs. The guarantee of a speedy trial is intended to avoid oppression and prevent delay by imposing on the Court and the prosecution an obligation to proceed with the trial with a reasonable dispatch. The guarantee serves a threefold purpose. Firstly, it protects the accused trial imprisonment; secondly, it relieves the accused of the anxiety and public suspicion due to unresolved criminal charges and lastly, it protects against the risk that evidence will be lost or memories dimmed by the passage of time, thus, impairing the ability of the accused to defend himself. It goes without saying that the consequences of trial detention are grave. Accused, presumed innocent, till proven otherwise, are subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of r onerous conditions. Equally important, the burden of detention of such an accused frequently falls heavily on the innocent There is yet another aspect of the matter which deserves consideration at this stage. The allegations in the present case relate to accused being involved in an FIR relating to commercial quantity of 4 22 titled as “Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh vs. The State of Gujarat”; Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated 05.08.2022 titled as Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma vs. Union of India, and Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024(4) RCR The right to a speedy and expeditious trial is not only a vital safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration; to mitigate anxiety and concern accompanying the accusation as well as to curtail lity of an accused to defend himself, but there is an overarching societal interest paving way for a speedy trial. This right has been repeatedly actuated in the recent past and the ratio decidendi of id down a series of decisions opening up new vistas of fundamental rights. The concept of speedy trial is amalgamated into the Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty, guaranteed and preserved under our The right to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint imposed at the time of the arrest of the accused and consequent incarceration which continues at all stages, namely, the stage of ible prejudice that may result due to impermissible and avoidable delay since the time of the commission of the offence till the criminal proceedings consummate into a finality, could be averted. The speedy trial, early of criminal jurisprudence. dockets, the heavy volume of work and the resultant pressure on the prosecution and the Police, indubitably keeps the entire criminal jurisprudential mechanism under stress and strain. s cannot be an excuse for keeping the sword of Damocles hanging on the accused for an indefinite period of time. It does not serve any credit to the criminal justice system, rather it makes for a sad state of tended to avoid oppression and prevent delay by imposing on the Court and the prosecution an obligation to proceed with the trial with a reasonable dispatch. The guarantee serves a threefold purpose. Firstly, it protects the accused trial imprisonment; secondly, it relieves the accused of the anxiety and public suspicion due to unresolved criminal charges and lastly, it protects against the risk that evidence will be lost or ability of the accused to defend himself. It goes without saying that the consequences of trial detention are grave. Accused, presumed innocent, till proven otherwise, are subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of r onerous conditions. Equally important, the burden of detention of such an accused frequently falls heavily on the innocent There is yet another aspect of the matter which deserves n the present case relate to accused being involved in an FIR relating to commercial quantity of MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.31 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-28413- prosecutor and after having satisfied itself of twin conditions which are fundamental right to a sp process, particularly where such delay(s) is neither attributable to the frustrate this legislative purpose. A Court of law is duty fundamental rights, notwithstanding anything contained in a statute. principle of justice and equity. failed to conclude within a reasonable time, resulting in prolonged Act, 1985 ought to be considered as per facts of a given cas 6.3. to be involved be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the -2025 (O&M) contraband under the NDPS Act, 1985. While considering a bail petition in a case involving commercial quantity, the Court has to keep in mind the rigours enumerated under Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 which mandates that Courts can grant bail to an accused only after hearing the public prosecutor and after having satisfied itself of twin conditions which are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is n offence charged/alleged and that, he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The stringent rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 must be meticulously scrutinized against the backdrop of accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial. The right to life and personal liberty cannot be rendered nugatory by unwarranted delays in the judicial process, particularly where such delay(s) is neither attributable to the accused nor justified at the end of the prosecution by cogent rea individual cannot be kept behind bars for an inordinate period of time by taking refuge in rigours laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The legislature in its wisdom, in order to ensure speedy and timely disposal of the cases under the Act, has provided for the constitution of special Courts under Section 36-A of the Act. However, this Court cannot turn Nelson’s eye to the protracted delays and systematic inefficiency that frustrate this legislative purpose. A Court of law is duty that it does not become complicit in violation of an individual’s fundamental rights, notwithstanding anything contained in a statute. While dealing with bail petition in a case governed by the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, the balance between the legislative intent to curb the menace of drugs and the sacrosanct right of the accused to a fair and expeditious trial. Prolonged incarceration, without justifiable cause, risks transforming pre detention into punitive imprisonment, an outcome antithetical to the principle of justice and equity. Ergo, the unequivocal inference is that where the trial has failed to conclude within a reasonable time, resulting in prolonged incarceration, it militates against the precious fundamental rights of life and liberty granted under the law and, as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 ought to be considered as per facts of a given cas words, grant of bail in a case pertaining to commercial quantity, on the ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985.” Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is involved in 01 case/FIR pertaining to IPC be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular he FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the 5 contraband under the NDPS Act, 1985. While considering a bail petition in a case involving commercial quantity, the Court has to keep in mind the erated under Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 which mandates that Courts can grant bail to an accused only after hearing the public prosecutor and after having satisfied itself of twin conditions which are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged/alleged and that, he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The stringent rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 must be meticulously scrutinized against the backdrop of accused’s eedy trial. The right to life and personal liberty cannot be rendered nugatory by unwarranted delays in the judicial process, particularly where such delay(s) is neither attributable to the accused nor justified at the end of the prosecution by cogent reasons. An individual cannot be kept behind bars for an inordinate period of time by taking refuge in rigours laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The legislature in its wisdom, in order to ensure speedy and timely Act, has provided for the constitution of A of the Act. However, this Court cannot to the protracted delays and systematic inefficiency that frustrate this legislative purpose. A Court of law is duty-bound to ensure that it does not become complicit in violation of an individual’s fundamental rights, notwithstanding anything contained in a statute. While dealing with bail petition in a case governed by the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, the Court must strike a judicious balance between the legislative intent to curb the menace of drugs and the sacrosanct right of the accused to a fair and expeditious trial. Prolonged incarceration, without justifiable cause, risks transforming pre-trial ntion into punitive imprisonment, an outcome antithetical to the , the unequivocal inference is that where the trial has failed to conclude within a reasonable time, resulting in prolonged militates against the precious fundamental rights of life and liberty granted under the law and, as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 ought to be considered as per facts of a given case. In other words, grant of bail in a case pertaining to commercial quantity, on the ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated IPC. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular he FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the 5 contraband under the NDPS Act, 1985. While considering a bail petition in a case involving commercial quantity, the Court has to keep in mind the erated under Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 which mandates that Courts can grant bail to an accused only after hearing the public prosecutor and after having satisfied itself of twin conditions which are ot guilty of the offence charged/alleged and that, he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The stringent rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 must be meticulously scrutinized against the backdrop of accused’s eedy trial. The right to life and personal liberty cannot be rendered nugatory by unwarranted delays in the judicial process, particularly where such delay(s) is neither attributable to the sons. An individual cannot be kept behind bars for an inordinate period of time by taking refuge in rigours laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The legislature in its wisdom, in order to ensure speedy and timely Act, has provided for the constitution of A of the Act. However, this Court cannot to the protracted delays and systematic inefficiency that d to ensure that it does not become complicit in violation of an individual’s fundamental rights, notwithstanding anything contained in a statute. While dealing with bail petition in a case governed by the rigours of Court must strike a judicious balance between the legislative intent to curb the menace of drugs and the sacrosanct right of the accused to a fair and expeditious trial. Prolonged trial ntion into punitive imprisonment, an outcome antithetical to the , the unequivocal inference is that where the trial has failed to conclude within a reasonable time, resulting in prolonged militates against the precious fundamental rights of life and liberty granted under the law and, as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37 of the NDPS e. In other words, grant of bail in a case pertaining to commercial quantity, on the ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 stated However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular he FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.31 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-28413- Hon’ble Supreme Court in another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of (Criminal) 477 Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. undertrial is not warranted in the facts 7. ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner s conditions: -2025 (O&M) Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is d to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned /Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following (i) The petitioner shall not mis (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on an the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO and shall not change his cell permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. (viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first wo every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in 6 Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and ; a Division Bench judgment of the Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as , decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an and circumstances of the case. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is d to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial hall remain bound by the following The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in 6 Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and ; a Division Bench judgment of the Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR 2022 titled as Balraj v. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is d to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to /Duty Magistrate. However, trial hall remain bound by the following The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or y date before The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the of concerned Police Station phone number without prior The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the rking day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.31 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-28413- 8. which may be imposed by concerned hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation petitioner. 9. 10. opinion on the merits of the case. 11. application, if any, shall July 31, 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: -2025 (O&M) commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being e FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 7 commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous also stands disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 7 commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any nlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those /Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the of bail of the Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.31 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment