CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----35039 35039 35039 35039---- 246 246 246 246 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Mukhtar Singh State of Punjab CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present: Present: Present: Present:- SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL 1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No registered for the off Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on) Churian, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur. 2. petition by the petitioner) is as follows: private vehicles, were going from Police Station F.G. Churian to Village ----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Mukhtar Singh versus Punjab HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. B.B.S. Randhawa, Advocate Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Additional AG Punjab. ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No registered for the offences punishable under Section Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on) Churian, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows: “Statement of LR/ASI Mohan Singh No. 1855/Batala, Police Station Fatehgarh Churian, Police District Batala. Stated that today I alongwith LR/ASI Parminder Singh No. 2178/Batala and PHG Jaswant private vehicles, were going from Police Station F.G. Churian to Village Veela Khurd, Teja, Teja Kalan, Kala Afgana etc. patrolling and in Teja for search of bad elements and during patrolling who on when police party on minor bridge on Teja Kalan, Road Kala Afgana then one hair cut 1111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT AT AT AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----35039 35039 35039 35039----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: August 12 August 12 August 12 August 12, 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 ….Petitioner ….Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Additional AG Punjab. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.22 dated 20.03.2024, ences punishable under Section 22 of the Narcotic Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station Fatehgarh Churian, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present Statement of LR/ASI Mohan Singh No. 1855/Batala, Police Station Fatehgarh Churian, Police District Batala. Stated that today I alongwith LR/ASI Sukhraj Singh No. 2129/Batala, CT Parminder Singh No. 2178/Batala and PHG Jaswant Singh No. 1530, on private vehicles, were going from Police Station F.G. Churian to Village Veela Khurd, Teja, Teja Kalan, Kala Afgana etc. patrolling and in Teja for of bad elements and during patrolling who on when police party on minor bridge on Teja Kalan, Road Kala Afgana then one hair cut 1111 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 Petitioner ….Respondent of the for grant of , Narcotic (for short ‘NDPS Act’) Fatehgarh The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present Statement of LR/ASI Mohan Singh No. 1855/Batala, Police Station Fatehgarh Churian, Police District Batala. Sukhraj Singh No. 2129/Batala, CT Singh No. 1530, on private vehicles, were going from Police Station F.G. Churian to Village Veela Khurd, Teja, Teja Kalan, Kala Afgana etc. patrolling and in Teja for of bad elements and during patrolling who on when police party on minor bridge on Teja Kalan, Road Kala Afgana then one hair cut MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.12 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----35039 35039 35039 35039---- youngster was seen coming from opposite side on foot, who was holding polythene bag in his right hand, seeing the police party put my seal "BS" over it. Sample was prepared separately. Seal aft ----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) youngster was seen coming from opposite side on foot, who was holding polythene bag in his right hand, seeing the police party and tried to return to village. To whom on suspicion, I, with the help employees apprehended him while he was to throw the polythene bag holding by him in his hand and asked his and address, who told his name as Mukhtar Singh son ASI, name of fellow of Sawinder Singh resident of Teja Kalan. On which I, ASI, have suspicion that accused Mukhtar above said is carrying some narcotic substance in polythene hand. I, a bag holding by him in his right ASI, being local ranked, in this regard House informed the Station Officer, through phone that investigating officer be sent the spot for which taking action. reached you the on on On spot employees. Statement is recorded to you. alongwith fellow Action should be taken. Sd/- Mohan Singh Churian, dated 20.03.2024. Attested by SD/ Station Fatehgarh Churian, dated 20.03.2024. Police Proceedings: Today I, ASI, Police Station was present that in INSP. Kirandeep Singh, Station House Officer, informed me that basis of Singh No. on the suspicion LR/ASI-Mohan 1855/Batala alongwith hair cut person alongwith polythene bag carrying by him in his hand, at minor bridge Teja Kalan, Road Kala Afgana. Reached o taking action. On which alongwith I PHG Ajitpal Singh No. 1509, with my investigation kit, laptop, printer, private on vehicle, reached at the spot, where LR/ASI Mohan Singh No. 1855/Batala alongwith LR/ASI Sukhraj Singh No. 2129/Batala, CT Parminder Singh No. 2178/Batala and PHG Jaswant Singh No. 1530, met and presented one youngster who was carrying polythene bag in his right hand and LR/ASI Mohan Singh NO. 1855/Batala got recorded his said statement signatures to me and put his underneath his statement, which was attested by me. Then I, LR/ASI, Mohan Singh No. 1855/Batala, informed said address and posting and asked his name, address, who told his name as Mukhtar Singh son Singh, resident Before of Sawinder of Teja conducting search of the of polythene bag carrying in the right hand accused Mukhtar Singh above said, efforts were made to include witness from the public but every one showed their inability and refused to join the police party. Then I, ASI, in the presence of fellow employees asked to accused Mukhtar Singh that I have suspicion that you have narcotic substance in the polythene bag carrying by you in your hand, you have to be searched but you have legal right to get yourself gazette searched officer from or some some magistrate, who can be called by me on the spot. If you wish you can be brought before gazetted conducting search, who told that you can conduct the search of mine and the polythene bag holding by me in my hand. O under Section 50 NDPS Act was prepared. Consent memo was signed by the Mukhtar Singh and witnesses put their testimony. I, ASI, presence of in fellow employees checked the polythene bag holding by accused Mukhtar Singh in his hand then loose narcotic tablets colour white were recovered, which are total 920 narcotic tablets colour white, in counting, which were put into plastic box by me, ASI and parcel was prepared and I put my seal "BS" over it. Sample was prepared separately. Seal aft was handed over to S/CT Parminder Singh No. 2178/Batala. I, ASI, took the possession of said parcel as an evidence in police custody vide separate seizure memo and personal search of accused as conducted other Mukhtar Singh was rules then per no nar recovered from accused said Mukhtar Singh and from the right pocket 2222 youngster was seen coming from opposite side on foot, who was holding polythene bag in his right hand, seeing the police party suddenly perplexed and tried to return to village. To whom on suspicion, I, with the help employees apprehended him while he was to throw the polythene bag holding by him in his hand and asked his and address, who told his name me of fellow of Sawinder Singh resident of Teja Kalan. On which I, ASI, have suspicion that accused Mukhtar Singh above said is carrying some narcotic substance in polythene hand. I, a bag holding by him in his right ASI, being local ranked, in this regard 1, ASI, House informed the Station Officer, through phone that investigating officer be sent the spot for which taking action. reached you the on on On spot employees. Statement is recorded to you. alongwith fellow Action Mohan Singh LR/ASI, Police Station Fatehgarh Churian, dated 20.03.2024. Attested by SD/- Balwinder Singh ASI, Police Station Fatehgarh Churian, dated 20.03.2024. Police Proceedings: Today I, ASI, Police Station was present that in INSP. Kirandeep Singh, Station Officer, informed me that basis of Singh No. on the suspicion Mohan 1855/Batala alongwith police party, has apprehended one hair cut person alongwith polythene bag carrying by him in his hand, at minor bridge Teja Kalan, Road Kala Afgana. Reached on the spot for taking action. On which alongwith I PHG Ajitpal Singh No. 1509, with my investigation kit, laptop, printer, private on vehicle, reached at the spot, where LR/ASI Mohan Singh No. 1855/Batala alongwith LR/ASI Parminder Singh No. 2178/Batala and PHG Jaswant Singh No. 1530, met and presented one youngster who was carrying polythene bag in his right hand and LR/ASI Mohan Singh NO. 1855/Batala got recorded his said statement signatures to me and put his his statement, which was attested by me. Then I, LR/ASI, Mohan Singh No. 1855/Batala, informed said youngster about my name, address and posting and asked his name, address, who told his name as Mukhtar Singh son Singh, resident Before of Sawinder of Teja Kalan. conducting search of the of polythene bag carrying in the right hand accused Mukhtar Singh above said, efforts were made to include witness from the public but every one showed their inability and refused to join e presence of fellow employees asked to accused Mukhtar Singh that I have suspicion that you have narcotic substance in the polythene bag carrying by you in your hand, you have to be searched but you have legal right to get yourself gazette searched r from or some some magistrate, who can be called by me on the spot. If you wish you can be brought before gazetted officer magistrate for conducting search, who told that you can conduct the search of mine and the polythene bag holding by me in my hand. On which consent memo under Section 50 NDPS Act was prepared. Consent memo was signed by the Mukhtar Singh and witnesses put their testimony. I, ASI, presence of in fellow employees checked the polythene bag holding by accused loose narcotic tablets colour white were recovered, which are total 920 narcotic tablets colour white, in counting, which were put into plastic box by me, ASI and parcel was prepared and I put my seal "BS" over it. Sample was prepared separately. Seal after use was handed over to S/CT Parminder Singh No. 2178/Batala. I, ASI, took the possession of said parcel as an evidence in police custody vide seizure memo and personal search of accused as conducted other Mukhtar Singh was rules then per no narcotic substance was of one recovered from accused said Mukhtar Singh and from the right pocket 2222 youngster was seen coming from opposite side on foot, who was holding suddenly perplexed and tried to return to village. To whom on suspicion, I, with the help employees apprehended him while he was to throw the polythene bag holding by him in his hand and asked his and address, who told his name me of fellow of Sawinder Singh resident of Singh above said is carrying some narcotic substance in polythene hand. I, a bag 1, ASI, House informed the Station Officer, through phone that investigating officer be sent the spot for which taking action. reached you the on on On spot employees. Statement is recorded to you. alongwith fellow Action LR/ASI, Police Station Fatehgarh Balwinder Singh ASI, Police Station Fatehgarh Churian, dated 20.03.2024. Police Proceedings: Today I, ASI, Police Station was present that in INSP. Kirandeep Singh, Station Officer, informed me that basis of Singh No. on the suspicion police party, has apprehended one hair cut person alongwith polythene bag carrying by him in his hand, at n the spot for taking action. On which alongwith I PHG Ajitpal Singh No. 1509, with my investigation kit, laptop, printer, private on vehicle, reached at the spot, where LR/ASI Mohan Singh No. 1855/Batala alongwith LR/ASI Parminder Singh No. 2178/Batala and PHG Jaswant Singh No. 1530, met and presented one youngster who was carrying polythene bag in his right hand and LR/ASI Mohan Singh NO. 1855/Batala got recorded his said statement signatures to me and put his his statement, which was attested by me. Then I, LR/ASI, youngster about my name, address and posting and asked his name, address, who told his name as Kalan. conducting search of the of polythene bag carrying in the right hand accused Mukhtar Singh above said, efforts were made to include witness from the public but every one showed their inability and refused to join e presence of fellow employees asked to accused Mukhtar Singh that I have suspicion that you have narcotic substance in the polythene bag carrying by you in your hand, you have to be searched but you have legal right to get yourself gazette searched r from or some some magistrate, who can be called by me on the officer magistrate for conducting search, who told that you can conduct the search of mine and n which consent memo under Section 50 NDPS Act was prepared. Consent memo was signed by the Mukhtar Singh and witnesses put their testimony. I, ASI, presence of in fellow employees checked the polythene bag holding by accused loose narcotic tablets colour white were recovered, which are total 920 narcotic tablets colour white, in counting, which were put into plastic box by me, ASI and parcel was prepared and I er use was handed over to S/CT Parminder Singh No. 2178/Batala. I, ASI, took the possession of said parcel as an evidence in police custody vide seizure memo and personal search of accused as conducted other cotic substance was of one recovered from accused said Mukhtar Singh and from the right pocket MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.12 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----35039 35039 35039 35039---- pant wore by him Indian Currency Note of Rs.100/ police custody through search memo. Accused was into not was taken bill 3. is in custody since submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the 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 10 months 4. arguing that the allegations raised and, thus, he State counsel has further submitted that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custo dated 11.08.2025 in Court, which is taken on record. 5. the available records of the case. ----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) pant wore by him Indian Currency Note of Rs.100/ police custody through search memo. Accused was into not was taken bill or personal could produce doctor prescription regarding any keeping recovered narcotic tablets recovered from him. Mukhtar Singh son of Accused Sawinder Singh resident of Teja Kalan, has committed an offence under Section 22-61-85 of NDPS Act by keeping 920 narcotic tablets colour white in his possession. Therefore, this ruqa is written and sent to police station through PHG Jaswant Singh registration 1530 for Number be of case. informed after registration of case. Special reports be issued to illaqa magistrate and senior office I, ASI, alongwith fellow employees are busy in investigation on the spot. Sd/-Balwinder Singh, ASI, Police Station Fatehgarh Churian, dated 20.03.2024. With in area of minor bridge Teja Kalan, on Kala Afgana Road, at 09:00 PM.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has is in custody since 20.03.2024. 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 suffere 10 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition arguing 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 the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custo 2025 in Court, which is taken on record. I have heard counsel for the rival the available records of the case. 3333 pant wore by him Indian Currency Note of Rs.100/- recovered, which police custody through search memo. Accused was into not was taken bill uce doctor prescription regarding any keeping recovered narcotic tablets recovered from him. Mukhtar Singh son of Accused Sawinder Singh resident of Teja Kalan, has committed an 85 of NDPS Act by keeping 920 narcotic our white in his possession. Therefore, this ruqa is written and sent to police station through PHG Jaswant Singh registration 1530 for registration of case. Special reports be issued to illaqa magistrate and senior officers. Control room be informed. I, ASI, alongwith fellow employees are busy in investigation on the spot. Balwinder Singh, ASI, Police Station Fatehgarh Churian, dated 20.03.2024. With in area of minor bridge Teja Kalan, on Kala Afgana 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 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 concession of the regular bail. Learned the instant bail plea is restricted by , 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 3333 recovered, which police custody through search memo. Accused was into not was taken bill uce doctor prescription regarding any keeping recovered narcotic tablets recovered from him. Mukhtar Singh son of Accused Sawinder Singh resident of Teja Kalan, has committed an 85 of NDPS Act by keeping 920 narcotic our white in his possession. Therefore, this ruqa is written and sent to police station through PHG Jaswant Singh registration 1530 for registration of case. Special reports be rs. Control room be informed. I, ASI, alongwith fellow employees are busy in investigation on the spot. Balwinder Singh, ASI, Police Station Fatehgarh Churian, dated 20.03.2024. With in area of minor bridge Teja Kalan, on Kala Afgana that the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. and Learned counsel d incarceration for more by are serious in nature Learned by , and thus, the same ought to be dy certificate parties and have gone through MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.12 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----35039 35039 35039 35039---- 6. investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 7 prosecution witnesses have been cited date. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues 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 pe 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 more than not shown to be the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6.2. Punjab Punjab Punjab 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 Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; ----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) The petitioner was arrested on investigation was carried out and challan was presented on prosecution witnesses have been cited, but only 01 The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues 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. 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 11.08.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than to be involved in any other case/FIR the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This Court in a judgment titled as passed in CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----64074 64074 64074 64074----2024 2024 2024 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 Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; 4444 The petitioner was arrested on 20.03.2024 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 03.05.2024. Total , but only 01 has been examined till The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues 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 titioner 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 more than 10 months, & is other case/FIR. In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted in light of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This Court in a judgment titled as Kulwinder versus State of Kulwinder versus State of Kulwinder versus State 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; 4444 whereinafter Total been examined till The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues 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 titioner absconding from the process of brought and As per custody .2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner is In this view of the matter, diluted in light Kulwinder versus State of Kulwinder versus State of Kulwinder versus State 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 Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.12 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----35039 35039 35039 35039---- 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 Wes Bapan vs. The State of West Bengal”, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5530-2022 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 Go and Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024(4) RCR (Criminal) 172; has held, thus: prejudice that may resu pressure on the prosecution and the Police, indubitably keeps the entire proceed with the trial with a reasonable dispatch. The guarantee serves a public suspicion due to unresolved criminal charges and lastly, it protects passage of time, thus, impairing the ability ----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 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.) 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 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 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 Constitution. The right to speedy trial be 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 hearing and quick disposal are sine qua non 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 intended t 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 ability himself. It goes without saying that the consequences of pre 5555 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 t Bengal”; “Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan vs. The State of West Bengal”, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) 2022 dated 22.08.2022 titled as “Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh vs. The State of Gujarat”; Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated pal 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 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 referred to Supreme Court’s judgments have laid down a series of s 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 possible lt 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. The 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 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 against oppressive pre- mprisonment; 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 pre-trial detention 5555 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 t Bengal”; “Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan vs. The State of West Bengal”, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) 2022 dated 22.08.2022 titled as “Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh vs. The State of Gujarat”; Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated pal 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 any 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 referred to Supreme Court’s judgments have laid down a series of s 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 gins 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 lt 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. The 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 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 o 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 - mprisonment; 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 of the accused to defend trial detention MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.12 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----35039 35039 35039 35039---- prosecutor and after having satisfied itself of twin conditions which are particularly where such delay(s) is neither attributable to the accused nor justified at the end of the prosecution by cogent reasons. An petition in a case governed by the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, undertrial is not warrant ----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) are grave. Accused, presumed innocent, till proven otherwise, are subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of jail 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 in the pr accused being involved in an FIR relating to commercial quantity of 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 not guilt 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 reasons. An 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 eye to the protracted delays and systematic inefficiency that frustrate this legislative purpose. A Court of law is duty 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 detention in 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 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 of the NDPS Act, 1985.” Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6666 are grave. Accused, presumed innocent, till proven otherwise, are subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of jail-life, usually s conditions. Equally important, the burden of detention of such an accused frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his 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 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 nder 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 al. 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 disposal of provided for the constitution of special Courts A of the Act. However, this Court cannot turn Nelson’s 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, st 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 trial detention into punitive imprisonment, an outcome antithetical to the principle of justice and equity. , the unequivocal inference is that where the trial has failed to conclude within a reasonable time, resulting in prolonged t 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 ds, 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 Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an and circumstances of the case. 6666 are grave. Accused, presumed innocent, till proven otherwise, are life, usually s conditions. Equally important, the burden of detention of such an accused frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his There is yet another aspect of the matter which deserves esent case relate to accused being involved in an FIR relating to commercial quantity of 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 nder 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 y 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 al. 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 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 provided for the constitution of special Courts Nelson’s to the protracted delays and systematic inefficiency that frustrate this ure 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, st 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 to punitive imprisonment, , the unequivocal inference is that where the trial has failed to conclude within a reasonable time, resulting in prolonged t 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 ds, 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 Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.12 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----35039 35039 35039 35039---- 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 shall remain bou conditions: 8. which may be imposed by concerned hereinabove o ----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered 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 bou (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 any date before 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 of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell permission of the trial Court/Illaqa (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. (viii) 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 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, 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 7777 In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered 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 /Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. tioner 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 osit 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 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 r upon showing any other sufficient cause, the 7777 In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to /Duty Magistrate. However, trial nd by the following tioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on osit his passport, if any, with the The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station phone number without prior 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 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 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 r upon showing any other sufficient cause, the MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.12 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----35039 35039 35039 35039---- State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. 10. opinion on the merits of the case. 11. application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. August 12 August 12 August 12 August 12, 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: ----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the 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 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 8888 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 application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. ((((SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)))) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE 8888 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.12 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment