CRM-M-29966 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 215 Vikram @ Bikram State of Haryana CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. petitioner under Section seeking regular bail in case bearing under Sections 21 Substances Act, 1985 District Kaithal earlier two petitions were dismissed as withdrawn. 2. Kumar were apprehended on 04.12.2021 and the recovery of heroin was recovered from the co 3. petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The trial is not progressing as when the previous petition was dismissed by this Court on 05.11.2024, it 29966-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Vikram @ Bikram Versus Haryana CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Ms. Gurvinder Kaur, Advocate and Mr. Harpreet S. Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) The instant one is the fourth petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 668 dated 04.12.2021, registered under Sections 21-C and 29 of the Narco Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) District Kaithal. The previous petition was earlier two petitions were dismissed as withdrawn. As per the allegations, the petitioner and co Kumar were apprehended on 04.12.2021 and the recovery of heroin was effected from the petitioner, recovered from the co-accused. Both of them Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The trial is not progressing as when the previous petition was dismissed by this Court on 05.11.2024, it IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-29966-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.07.2025 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Ms. Gurvinder Kaur, Advocate and Mr. Harpreet S. Rakhra, Advocate Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. The instant one is the fourth petition that has been filed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 FIR No. 668 dated 04.12.2021, registered Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station City Kaithal, . The previous petition was dismissed on 05.11.2024 and earlier two petitions were dismissed as withdrawn. As per the allegations, the petitioner and co-accused Rajesh Kumar were apprehended on 04.12.2021 and the recovery of 655 grams of effected from the petitioner, whereas 160 grams of heroin was accused. Both of them are facing trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The trial is not progressing as when the previous petition was dismissed by this Court on 05.11.2024, it -1- 2025 (O&M) 02.07.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent has been filed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 FIR No. 668 dated 04.12.2021, registered tic Drugs and Psychotropic at Police Station City Kaithal, on 05.11.2024 and accused Rajesh 655 grams of whereas 160 grams of heroin was Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The trial is not progressing as when the previous petition was dismissed by this Court on 05.11.2024, it MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.02 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29966 was noticed that 06 prose then, a period of about 08 months has passed but the trial is standstill as no other witness has been examined during interregnum. custody since In view of substantial delay in trial, the petitioner is entitled to get benefit of bail and the rigors under Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be dispensed with as no useful purpose would be served by keeping therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. submitting that with the co contraband was effected from them liable to be dismissed. 5. and have also gone through the record carefully. 6. accused and since then he is in custody. While dismissing the previous petition, it was noticed by this Court that 06 prosecution witnesses had been examined by then and that situation remains witness could be examined before the trial Court during the intervening period. It goes to show that the trial likelihood of the same to conclude in near future incarceration. 2023 Live Law (SC) 533 militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Articl 29966-2025 (O&M) was noticed that 06 prosecution witnesses had been examined by then. then, a period of about 08 months has passed but the trial is standstill as no other witness has been examined during interregnum. custody since 03.12.2021 i.e. for the last more than 0 In view of substantial delay in trial, the petitioner is entitled to get benefit of and the rigors under Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be dispensed with as useful purpose would be served by keeping therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer of the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of bail as he along with the co-accused was nabbed at the s contraband was effected from them. Hence, it is urged that liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable and have also gone through the record carefully. The petitioner was apprehended on 03.12.2021 along with the co accused and since then he is in custody. While dismissing the previous petition, it was noticed by this Court that 06 prosecution witnesses had been examined by then and that situation remains witness could be examined before the trial Court during the intervening period. It goes to show that the trial is substantially likelihood of the same to conclude in near future incarceration. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rabi Prakash vs. State of Odisha : 2023 Live Law (SC) 533 has held that the prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Articl cution witnesses had been examined by then. Since then, a period of about 08 months has passed but the trial is standstill as no other witness has been examined during interregnum. The petitioner is in i.e. for the last more than 03 years and 06 months. In view of substantial delay in trial, the petitioner is entitled to get benefit of and the rigors under Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be dispensed with as useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. It therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer of the petitioner by the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of bail as he along accused was nabbed at the spot and huge quantity of the Hence, it is urged that the petition is I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the record carefully. The petitioner was apprehended on 03.12.2021 along with the co accused and since then he is in custody. While dismissing the previous petition, it was noticed by this Court that 06 prosecution witnesses had been examined by then and that situation remains the same even today as no further witness could be examined before the trial Court during the intervening substantially delayed and there is no likelihood of the same to conclude in near future. The petitioner is in long Rabi Prakash vs. State of Odisha : he prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Articl -2- Since then, a period of about 08 months has passed but the trial is standstill as no The petitioner is in months. In view of substantial delay in trial, the petitioner is entitled to get benefit of and the rigors under Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be dispensed with as in custody anymore. It is, Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer of the petitioner by the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of bail as he along huge quantity of the ition is length The petitioner was apprehended on 03.12.2021 along with the co- accused and since then he is in custody. While dismissing the previous petition, it was noticed by this Court that 06 prosecution witnesses had been the same even today as no further witness could be examined before the trial Court during the intervening delayed and there is no . The petitioner is in long Rabi Prakash vs. State of Odisha : he prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.02 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29966 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pr Reliance can also be placed of Delhi) Supreme Court, while granting concession of regular bail to an accused, from whom commercial quantity of the contraband was allegedly recovered, has held that g be fettered by Sect authority cited as and another, 2022(10) SCC 51 the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Reliance can also be pl cited as Bhupender Singh v (Criminal) 706 issue with respect to achieving balance between right to speedy trial guaranteed under Art enumerated under Section 37 of the is not precluded from claiming bail invoking parameters of Article 21 of the Constitution of India NDPS Act. substantially delayed. and circumstances and also the authorities, would be served by keeping 29966-2025 (O&M) 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh : 2024 (4) RCR (Criminal) 172 Reliance can also be placed upon Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT : 2023 AIR(SC) 1648 2023 AIR(SC) 1648 Supreme Court, while granting concession of regular bail to an accused, from whom commercial quantity of the contraband was allegedly recovered, has grant of bail on the ground of undue delay in trial be fettered by Section 37 of the NDPS Act authority cited as Satender Kumar Antil v and another, 2022(10) SCC 51, wherein similar observations were made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Reliance can also be pl Bhupender Singh vs. Narcotic Control Bureau : (2022) 2 RCR (Criminal) 706, wherein a Division Bench of this Court, 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 is not precluded from claiming bail invoking parameters of Article 21 of the Constitution of India de-hors the stringent provisio Act. In the present case, apparently and evidently, substantially delayed. Therefore, keeping in view 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 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ankur adesh : 2024 (4) RCR (Criminal) 172 Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT 2023 AIR(SC) 1648 2023 AIR(SC) 1648, 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 the ground of undue delay in trial cannot be said to Act. Reference can also be made to the Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation wherein similar observations were made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Reliance can also be placed upon the authority s. Narcotic Control Bureau : (2022) 2 RCR , wherein a Division Bench of this Court, after considering issue with respect to achieving balance between right to speedy trial icle 21 of the Constitution of India and the rigors NDPS Act, has held that convict/accused is not precluded from claiming bail invoking parameters of Article 21 of the the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the In the present case, apparently and evidently, the trial is Therefore, keeping in view the aforementioned facts 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, -3- 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Ankur adesh : 2024 (4) RCR (Criminal) 172. Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT Hon’ble Supreme Court, while granting concession of regular bail to an accused, from whom commercial quantity of the contraband was allegedly recovered, has cannot be said to Reference can also be made to the s. Central Bureau of Investigation wherein similar observations were made by the authority s. Narcotic Control Bureau : (2022) 2 RCR after considering issue with respect to achieving balance between right to speedy trial icle 21 of the Constitution of India and the rigors held that convict/accused is not precluded from claiming bail invoking parameters of Article 21 of the ns of Section 37 of the the trial is the aforementioned facts ratio of law as laid down in the aforecited no useful purpose Accordingly, MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.02 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29966 the present petition regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail in case the involved in any other subsequent case. 7. for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 02.07.2025 Waseem Ansari Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 29966-2025 (O&M) the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail in case the nvolved in any other subsequent case. 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. 02.07.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds 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 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- be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction However, it will be open for the is found 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 2025.07.02 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document