CRM-M-5397-20 IN THE H (211) MANJIT SINGH STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON
Present: Mr. P Mr. R MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 483 of Bh for grant of regul registered under S (for short “NDPS previous petitions and 02.09.2025. 2. As pe received to the ef Singh was involve they were going motorbike for sup 2026 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH INGH Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the p Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant one is the third petition pr of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh f regular bail in case arising out of nder Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and NDPS”) at Police Station STF Moh titions were dismissed as withdrawn v As per the allegations, on 20.03.20 the effect that the petitioner alongw involved in the sale of intoxicant tab going from Village Jodhpur to Bar or supplying intoxicant tablets to the JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-5397-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 07.04.2026 ... Petitioner
...Respondent
ANISHA BATRA r the petitioner Punjab preferred by the petitioner under a Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) ut of FIR No.49 dated 20.03.2024 gs and Psychotropic Substances Act Mohali, District STF Wing. His awn vide order dated on 26.05.2025 .03.2024, a secret information was longwith the co-accused Balwinder tablets and at that point of time, o Barnala by Khuddi Kalan on a to their customers. It was further 2026 nder ) 2024 s Act His 2025 was inder time, on a rther AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.07 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-5397-20 informed that th Believing the secr immediately rushe the co-accused. 8 conscious possess petitioner and the the vehicle, the s petitioner and c involvement in the alongwith the co offences. 3. It is a falsely implicated is in custody sinc the near future s examined so far. H by detaining him him had been dism furnished a groun extended benefit o benefit. With the be allowed. 2026 (O&M) 2 at they could be apprehended wi e secret information to be true, a rai rushed to the informed place and a sed. 800 intoxicant tablets of Tramad ossession which was taken into cus d the co-accused failed to produce an the same was also taken into the cu and co-accused suffered disclosure t in the crime. Investigation now stand he co-accused is facing trial for co It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case. A false recovery h y since 20.03.2024. There are no cha ture since only 05 out of 17 pros far. His antecedents are clean. No u him in custody anymore. The prev en dismissed as withdrawn. Each day ground to move for bail afresh. The nefit of bail. On parity, he too dese ith these broad submissions, it is urge ed with huge quantity of tablets. , a raiding party was formed which and apprehended the petitioner and ramadol were recovered from their to custody by the Police. As the uce any document qua ownership of the custody. On interrogation, the closure statement admitting their stands completed and the petitioner for commission of aforementioned l for the petitioner that he has been very has been planted upon him. He no chances of conclusion of trial in prosecution witnesses have been No useful purpose would be served e previous two petitions as filed by ch day spent by him in custody has The co-accused has already been o deserves to be extended the same s urged that the petition deserves to lets. hich and their s the ip of , the their ioner oned n . He ial in been rved d by has been same es to AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.07 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-5397-20 4. Per c against the petitio contraband had b chances of his abs bail. The rigors o petition being a su the petition does n 5. This C at considerable len 6. The progressed much that the Court, wh certain factors in m ground to believe which are peculiar nature and gravity conviction, the da and reasonable app the same time, t considered while d with an offence. T an accused cannot 2026 (O&M) 3 Per contra, learned State counsel ha petitioner are quite serious in natu had been recovered from his consc absconding or committing similar igors of Section 37 of NDPS are attra g a successive one is not maintainabl does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submi ble length. The petitioner is in custody since 20 much after disposal of his previous urt, while considering an application rs in mind such as whether there is a elieve that the accused has committe eculiar to the accused, likelihood of t ravity of the accusation, severity of t the danger of the accused absconding ble apprehension of the witnesses bein e, the period of incarceration is while deciding whether bail should be nce. The Hon’ble Apex Court has obs cannot be kept in custody for an inde nsel has argued that the allegations n nature. Commercial quantity of conscious possession. There are r offences, if extended benefit of e attracted in this case. The present tainable. It is, therefore, argued that ubmissions made by both the parties ince 20.03.2024. The trial has not ious petitions. It is well-settled law cation for grant of bail, has to keep e is a prima facie case or reasonable mmitted the offence, circumstances d of the offence being repeated, the ty of the punishment in the event of nding or fleeing if released on bail, es being threatened, etc. However, at on is also a relevant factor to be uld be granted to an accused charged as observed in a catena of cases that n indefinite period of time, and the tions y of are fit of esent that rties s not law keep able nces e nt of bail, er, at o be rged that d the AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.07 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-5397-20 bail application ca It has also been he action for filing a a part of the broad to balance the righ system. It is we delay in trial and Section 37 of the observations made State (NCT of Del of bail on accoun Section 37 of the which is applicabl overcrowded and t danger of unjusti hardened rather th and Another v. No.8656 of 2023 2023 LiveLaw (S benefit of bail to observing that pr fundamental right 2026 (O&M) 4 tion can be considered on its own meri een held that every day spent in custo ling a bail application under certain ci broader approach emphasizing that la he rights of the accused with the requi is well settled proposition of law th l and long period of incarceration is t of the NDPS Act. Reliance in this re s made by Hon’ble Apex Court in M f Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, ccount of undue delay in trial canno of the NDPS Act, given the imperativ plicable to offence under the Act. It w d and their living conditions are, more unjustified imprisonment is that inm ther than reformed. Reliance can also v. State of West Bengal, Specia 023 decided on 14.09.2023 and Rab w (SC) 533, wherein the Hon’ble ail to the accused who had been inca hat prolonged incarceration militate l right guaranteed under Article 21 of n merits even if it is filed repeatedly. custody can provide a new cause of tain circumstances. This principle is that law prefers bail over jail, aiming requirements of the criminal justice law that grant of bail on account of on is to be considered in the light of this regard can be placed upon the in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. 352, wherein it was held that grant cannot be said to be fettered under erative of Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. ct. It was also observed that jails are , more often than not, appalling. The at inmates are more likely to be n also be placed upon Manmandal pecial Leave Petition (Criminal) Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, n’ble Supreme Court had extended n incarcerated for a long period by ilitated against the most precious 21 of the Constitution and in such a edly. se of le is ming stice nt of ht of n the v. grant nder .P.C. s are . The o be dal al) ha, nded d by cious ch a AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.07 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-5397-20 situation, the con contained under Se 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 436A (which requ not concluded wit would apply.
9. In th Crminal Appeal quantity of narcoti 2026 (O&M) 5 e constitutional principles must ov nder Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 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 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 st override the statutory embargo 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 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 argo of ently ction r bail early ourt n of f her ntil ation hich ents, ction ial is 1973 an rcial nefit AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.07 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-5397-20 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 suff days. The trial is prosecution witne antecedents. The fruitful purpose. T petitioner will not already been exten benefit of bail. 12. In vie case is made out f petition is allowed his furnishing pers trial Court/Chief J 2026 (O&M) 6 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 uffered prolonged incarceration fo rial is not likely to be concluded in ne witnesses have been examined so fa . The continued detention of the petiti ose. There is nothing on record to sho ill not participate in the trial or will extended benefit of bail. On parity, h In view of the above discussion, this e out for grant of bail to the petitioner llowed and the petitioner is ordered to g personal as well as surety bonds to hief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistr 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 tion for a period of 02 years and 17 d in near future as only 05 out of 17 d so far. The petitioner’s has clean e petitioner is not likely to serve any to show that if released on bail, the r will abscond. The co-accused has arity, he too deserves to be extended n, this Court is of the opinion that a itioner at this stage. Accordingly, the ered to be released on bail subject to nds to the satisfaction of the learned agistrate concerned. years LP gal 72 esent t the d 17 f 17 clean any l, the has nded hat a , the ct to rned AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.07 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-5397-20 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 07.04.2026 Amit Sharma 2026 (O&M) 7 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
  
y FIR/complaint lodged against the State to seek redressal by filing an e observations made above shall not s Court on the merits of the case ial in any manner.
een allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
t the g an l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.07 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.