CRM-M-24489- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (221) AMANPREET SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. The Section 483 of Bharatiya seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. registered under Section 15 and 22 of Substances Act (for short “NDPS Act”) (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Shambu, District Patiala M-1178-2025 was dismissed on 29.07.2025 and the second petition bearing CRM-M-72240-2025 was dismissed 2. The petitioner alongwith the co found in conscious possession of 500 grams of intoxicating pow Tramadol Hydrochloride and 20 Kgs of poppy husk on 23.06.2024. The recovered contraband was taken into possession by the Police. He was formally arrested with the co -2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision : AMANPREET SINGH Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant one is the third petition Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. registered under Section 15 and 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic (for short “NDPS Act”) (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Shambu, District Patiala. His 2025 was dismissed on 29.07.2025 and the second petition bearing 2025 was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.02.2026. The petitioner alongwith the co-accused is alleged to have been found in conscious possession of 500 grams of intoxicating pow Tramadol Hydrochloride and 20 Kgs of poppy husk on 23.06.2024. The raband was taken into possession by the Police. He was formally arrested with the co-accused and is presently facing trial. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-24489-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.07.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA , Advocate for the petitioner is the third petition filed by the petitioner under Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.66 dated 23.06.2024 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic (for short “NDPS Act”) (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later . His first petition bearing CRM- 2025 was dismissed on 29.07.2025 and the second petition bearing as withdrawn on 19.02.2026. accused is alleged to have been found in conscious possession of 500 grams of intoxicating powder containing Tramadol Hydrochloride and 20 Kgs of poppy husk on 23.06.2024. The raband was taken into possession by the Police. He was formally accused and is presently facing trial. filed by the petitioner under Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) 66 dated 23.06.2024 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic (for short “NDPS Act”) (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later - 2025 was dismissed on 29.07.2025 and the second petition bearing accused is alleged to have been er containing Tramadol Hydrochloride and 20 Kgs of poppy husk on 23.06.2024. The raband was taken into possession by the Police. He was formally AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.29 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-24489- 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. After dismissal of his pr year back, there has been no progression in the trial as only 0 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The chances of conclusion of trial in the near future are bleak. He is in custody for a period of over 02 years. His further incarceration militates against his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. has furnished a new ground to him to seek concession of bail afresh. clean antecedents. allowed. 4. Per contra, learned report and custody certificate has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. It is also argued by her that a successive petition. It is, thus, urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 6. The petitio quantity of contraband had been recovered from his conscious possession. The allegations against him subject offences by the petitioner. this petition being successive one is concerned, it may be mentioned that, an accused has a right to move successive bail application for grant of bail and it is -2026 (O&M) 2 It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. After dismissal of his pr year back, there has been no progression in the trial as only 0 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The chances of conclusion of trial in the near future are bleak. He is in custody for a period of over 02 years. His further incarceration militates against his fundamental rights guaranteed 21 of the Constitution of India. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished a new ground to him to seek concession of bail afresh. clean antecedents. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be Per contra, learned State counsel report and custody certificate has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. It is also argued by her that the petition is not maintainable being a successive petition. It is, thus, urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. The petitioner was apprehended by the police party and commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered from his conscious possession. The allegations against him prima facie make out a case for commission of the subject offences by the petitioner. So far as the question of maintainability of this petition being successive one is concerned, it may be mentioned that, an accused has a right to move successive bail application for grant of bail and it is It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. After dismissal of his previous petition about one year back, there has been no progression in the trial as only 02 out of 10 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The chances of conclusion of trial in the near future are bleak. He is in custody for a period of over 02 years. His further incarceration militates against his fundamental rights guaranteed Each day spent by him in custody has furnished a new ground to him to seek concession of bail afresh. He has It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be while relying upon the status report and custody certificate has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended the petition is not maintainable being a successive petition. It is, thus, urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel ner was apprehended by the police party and commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered from his conscious possession. The make out a case for commission of the he question of maintainability of this petition being successive one is concerned, it may be mentioned that, an accused has a right to move successive bail application for grant of bail and it is It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been evious petition about one 2 out of 10 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The chances of conclusion of trial in the near future are bleak. He is in custody for a period of over 02 years. His further incarceration militates against his fundamental rights guaranteed Each day spent by him in custody He has It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be while relying upon the status report and custody certificate has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended the petition is not maintainable being This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel ner was apprehended by the police party and commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered from his conscious possession. The make out a case for commission of the he question of maintainability of this petition being successive one is concerned, it may be mentioned that, an accused has a right to move successive bail application for grant of bail and it is AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.29 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-24489- the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a subsequent consider that any fresh ground which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application is made out or not. It is also required to be noted that every day spent by an accused in custody provides a new c action for filing a bail application under certain circumstances. kept in custody for indefinite period and the bail application can be considered even if it is filed repeatedly. The denial of bail comes with a condition that the prosecution must press for early completion of the trial. He has clean antecedents. He is in custody since 28.06.2024. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. It is well settled proposition of law that grant of bail on account of delay in trial the light of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the observations made by Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 35 held that grant of bail on account of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, given the imperative of Section 436 A of Cr.P.C. which is applicable to offence under the Act. It was also observed that jails are overcrowded and their living conditions are, more often than not, appalling. The danger of unjustified imprisonment is that inmates are more likely to be hardened rather than reformed. Reliance can also be placed upon Manmandal and Another (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on 14.09.2023 and Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533, extended benefit of bail to the accused who had been incarcer -2026 (O&M) 3 the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a subsequent consider that any fresh ground which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application is made out or not. It is also required to be noted that every day spent by an accused in custody provides a new c action for filing a bail application under certain circumstances. kept in custody for indefinite period and the bail application can be considered even if it is filed repeatedly. The denial of bail comes with a condition that the ecution must press for early completion of the trial. He has clean antecedents. He is in custody since 28.06.2024. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. It is well settled proposition of law that grant of bail on account of delay in trial and long period of incarceration is to be considered in the light of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 35 held that grant of bail on account of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, given the imperative of Section 436 A of Cr.P.C. which is applicable to offence under the Act. It was also observed that jails are overcrowded and their living conditions are, more often than not, appalling. The danger of unjustified imprisonment is that inmates are more likely to be hardened rather than reformed. Reliance can also be placed upon Manmandal and Another v. State of West Bengal, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on 14.09.2023 and Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had extended benefit of bail to the accused who had been incarcer the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a subsequent bail application, to consider that any fresh ground which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application is made out or not. It is also required to be noted that every day spent by an accused in custody provides a new cause of action for filing a bail application under certain circumstances. He cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period and the bail application can be considered even if it is filed repeatedly. The denial of bail comes with a condition that the ecution must press for early completion of the trial. He has clean antecedents. He is in custody since 28.06.2024. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. It is well settled proposition of law that grant of bail on and long period of incarceration is to be considered in the light of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reliance in this regard can be placed Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, wherein it was held that grant of bail on account of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, given the imperative of Section 436- A of Cr.P.C. which is applicable to offence under the Act. It was also observed that jails are overcrowded and their living conditions are, more often than not, appalling. The danger of unjustified imprisonment is that inmates are more likely to be hardened rather than reformed. Reliance can also be placed upon v. State of West Bengal, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on 14.09.2023 and Rabi Prakash v. State wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had extended benefit of bail to the accused who had been incarcerated for a long bail application, to consider that any fresh ground which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application is made out or not. It is also required to ause of He cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period and the bail application can be considered even if it is filed repeatedly. The denial of bail comes with a condition that the ecution must press for early completion of the trial. He has clean antecedents. He is in custody since 28.06.2024. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. It is well settled proposition of law that grant of bail on and long period of incarceration is to be considered in the light of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reliance in this regard can be placed Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Muslim @ wherein it was held that grant of bail on account of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be - A of Cr.P.C. which is applicable to offence under the Act. It was also observed that jails are overcrowded and their living conditions are, more often than not, appalling. The danger of unjustified imprisonment is that inmates are more likely to be hardened rather than reformed. Reliance can also be placed upon v. State of West Bengal, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on 14.09.2023 and Rabi Prakash v. State wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had ated for a long AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.29 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-24489- period by observing that prolonged incarceration militated against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 7. Reliance can also be placed upon Chhattishgarh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025, Supreme Court observing that rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act will not be bar for considering the case of an accused for bail as it comes with a condition that the prosecution would press for an early completion of trial. In the above mentioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that appellant who was being prosecuted for being in possession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, was entitled for bail in view of her incarceration for a period of 19 months. 8. Similarly in Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 engaged the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The court expressed the opinion that Section 436A (which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 would apply. 9. In the case of Crminal Appeal No.4911 of 2025 quantity of narcotic substance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court accorded the benefit -2026 (O&M) 4 period by observing that prolonged incarceration militated against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the constitutional principles must override the statutory o contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reliance can also be placed upon Chhattishgarh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025, Supreme Court observing that rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act will not be bar for considering the case of an accused for bail as it comes with a condition that the prosecution would press for an early completion of trial. In the above mentioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that appellant who was being eing in possession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, was entitled for bail in view of her incarceration for a period of 19 months. Similarly in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 prolonged incarcerati engaged the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The court expressed the opinion that Section 436A ires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 In the case of Ismail Khan @ Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan Crminal Appeal No.4911 of 2025 with regard to recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court accorded the benefit period by observing that prolonged incarceration militated against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the constitutional principles must override the statutory o contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reliance can also be placed upon Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observing that rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act will not be a bar for considering the case of an accused for bail as it comes with a condition that the prosecution would press for an early completion of trial. In the above- mentioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that appellant who was being eing in possession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, was entitled for bail in view of her incarceration for a period of 19 months. Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The court expressed the opinion that Section 436A ires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Ismail Khan @ Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan regard to recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court accorded the benefit period by observing that prolonged incarceration militated against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the constitutional principles must override the statutory Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Hon’ble a bar for considering the case of an accused for bail as it comes with a condition - mentioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that appellant who was being eing in possession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of on and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The court expressed the opinion that Section 436A ires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Ismail Khan @ Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan regard to recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court accorded the benefit AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.29 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-24489- of bail to the accused in view of prolonged incarceration for a period of 02 years and 08 months of the accused. 10. On analyzing the peculia case in the light of the aforementioned principles of law, it transpires that the petitioner has suffered prolonged incarceration for a period of 02 years and 27 days. The trial is not likely to be concluded in nea prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The continued detention of the petitioner is not likely to serve any fruitful purpose. There is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not parti trial or will abscond. 11. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be re his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. 12. It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner. 13. Since the main petition has been any, is rendered infructuous. 28.07.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 5 of bail to the accused in view of prolonged incarceration for a period of 02 years and 08 months of the accused. On analyzing the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case in the light of the aforementioned principles of law, it transpires that the petitioner has suffered prolonged incarceration for a period of 02 years and 27 days. The trial is not likely to be concluded in nea prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The continued detention of the petitioner is not likely to serve any fruitful purpose. There is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not parti trial or will abscond. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be re his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not trued as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner. Since the main petition has been allowed, any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATR Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No of bail to the accused in view of prolonged incarceration for a period of 02 years r facts and circumstances of the present case in the light of the aforementioned principles of law, it transpires that the petitioner has suffered prolonged incarceration for a period of 02 years and 27 days. The trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as only 02 out of 10 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The continued detention of the petitioner is not likely to serve any fruitful purpose. There is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate in the In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not trued as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner. allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No of bail to the accused in view of prolonged incarceration for a period of 02 years r facts and circumstances of the present case in the light of the aforementioned principles of law, it transpires that the petitioner has suffered prolonged incarceration for a period of 02 years and 27 r future as only 02 out of 10 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The continued detention of the petitioner is not likely to serve any fruitful purpose. There is nothing on cipate in the In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the leased on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not trued as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case pending application, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.29 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.