CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----41607 41607 41607 41607---- 111+220 111+220 111+220 111+220 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 Sukhdeep Singh @ Laddi @ Puri 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 (for short ‘BNSS’) regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR registered for the off Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Police Station 2. accused of being involved in tablets of Crakdol tablets of Ralin the petitioner. 3. is in custody since ----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: Sukhdeep Singh @ Laddi @ Puri 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. Kanwaljeet Singh Brar, Advocate Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab. ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present third petition has been filed under Section Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR registered for the offences punishable under Section Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Police Station Sadar Sri Muktsar Sahib, District Sri Muktsar Sahib. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving tablets of Crakdol-100 SR containing salt Tapentadol Hydrochloride and 50 tablets of Ralin-0.5 MD containing salt Etizolam the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has is in custody since 30.10.2022. Learned counsel 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----41607 41607 41607 41607----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 21 August 21 August 21 August 21,,,, 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. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab. petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.201 dated 30.10.2022, ences punishable under Section 22(C) of the Narcotic Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Sadar Sri Muktsar Sahib, District Sri Muktsar Sahib. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 250 100 SR containing salt Tapentadol Hydrochloride and 50 0.5 MD containing salt Etizolam allegedly recovered from Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner has further 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 at an 250 100 SR containing salt Tapentadol Hydrochloride and 50 allegedly recovered from petitioner has further MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.22 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----41607 41607 41607 41607---- submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously from inherent defects. trial is delayed petitioner. Learned counsel has further itera suffered incarceration for more than 02 years. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. arguing that the allegations raised and, thus, he State counsel has further submitted that rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act dismissed. Learned State counsel se dated 20.08.2025 in 5. the available records of the case. 6. investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 20 prosecution witnesses have been cited have given up debatable issues 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 ----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 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 delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the Learned counsel has further itera suffered incarceration for more than 02 years. Thus, regular bail is prayed 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 barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate 2025 in the Court today, which is taken on record. I have heard counsel for the rival the available records of the case. The petitioner was arrested on investigation was carried out and challan was presented on prosecution witnesses have been cited, and have given up till date. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to issues, which 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 2222 submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the thereof cannot be fastened upon the Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 02 years. Thus, regular bail is prayed Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by against the petitioner are serious in nature does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned the instant bail plea is barred by the , and thus, the same ought to be eks to place on record custody certificate , which is taken on record. rival parties and have gone through The petitioner was arrested on 30.10.2022 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 21.03.2023. Total and 01 has been examined and 04 The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to 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 2222 submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers the thereof cannot be fastened upon the ted that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 02 years. Thus, regular bail is prayed by are serious in nature Learned the instant bail plea is barred by the , and thus, the same ought to be eks to place on record custody certificate parties and have gone through whereinafter Total 04 The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.22 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----41607 41607 41607 41607---- been brought forward to indicate t from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1. petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the was dismissed incarceration of the petitioner for a period of more than substantial progress in trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A p judgment of this Court passed in versus State of Haryana and another versus State of Haryana and another versus State of Haryana and another versus State of Haryana and another principles emerge: ----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. Indubitably, the present petition is the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the was dismissed on 02.05.2025. However, keeping in view further incarceration of the petitioner for a period of more than substantial progress in trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRA CRA CRA CRA----SSSS----2332 2332 2332 2332 versus State of Haryana and another versus State of Haryana and another versus State of Haryana and another versus State of Haryana and another; relevant whereof reads as under: “10. As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following principles emerge: I Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof. II. Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non or earlier petition was dismissed on merits. III For the second/successive regular succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. The metaphoric expression of seeking seco ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances. IV No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive regular bail petition(s). V In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court 3333 he likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. Indubitably, the present petition is the third attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner . However, keeping in view further incarceration of the petitioner for a period of more than 03 months and no substantial progress in trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the rofitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a 2332 2332 2332 2332----2023 2023 2023 2023 titled as Rafiq Khan Rafiq Khan Rafiq Khan Rafiq Khan ; relevant whereof reads as under: As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof. Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-prosecution or earlier petition was dismissed on merits. For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. The metaphoric expression of seeking second/successive bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is eft to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive regular bail petition(s). In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to corded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court 3333 he likelihood of the petitioner absconding attempt by the petitioner . However, keeping in view further and no substantial progress in trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the rofitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a Rafiq Khan Rafiq Khan Rafiq Khan Rafiq Khan As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as prosecution bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. The nd/successive bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is eft to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to corded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.22 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----41607 41607 41607 41607---- 6.2. forth by the petitioner, folly thereof cannot be certificate dated has already suffered incarceration for a period of days. In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands India. 6.3. 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 Nabi Shaikh vs. Sta 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 A 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 Gopal Krishna Patra @ ----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed. 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 20.08.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the stands diluted in light of the Article 21 of the Constitution of 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 Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2023 INSC 311; Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 dated 07.02.2020 titled as “Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas vs. The State of West Bengal”; “Nitish A 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 @ 4444 having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly he said order passed.” orders passed by the trial Court, brought indicates that the trial is indeed procrastinating and upon the petitioner. As per custody .2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 02 years, 09 months and 05 In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the diluted in light of the Article 21 of the Constitution of This Court in a judgment titled as Kulwinder versus State of Kulwinder versus State of Kulwinder versus State of Kulwinder versus State of 25: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 te of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2023 INSC 311; Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 dated 07.02.2020 titled as “Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas vs. The State of West Bengal”; “Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan vs. The State of West Bengal”, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) 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, 4444 having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly brought and As per custody .2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner 05 In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the diluted in light of the Article 21 of the Constitution of Kulwinder versus State of Kulwinder versus State of Kulwinder versus State of Kulwinder versus State of 25: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 te of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2023 INSC 311; Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 dated 07.02.2020 titled as “Chitta dhikary @ 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 Gopalrusma vs. Union of India, MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.22 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----41607 41607 41607 41607---- 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 of the accused to d prosecutor and after having satisfied itself of twin conditions which are ----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 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 to avoid oppression a 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 of the accused to d himself. It goes without saying that the consequences of pre 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 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 rigours enumerated under Section 37 of N 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 5555 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 eping 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- y, 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 are grave. Accused, presumed innocent, till proven otherwise, are subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of jail-life, usually y 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 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 guilty of the rged/alleged and that, he is not likely to commit any offence 5555 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 udence. 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 eping 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 nd 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 - y, 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 efend trial detention are grave. Accused, presumed innocent, till proven otherwise, are life, usually y 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 DPS 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 rged/alleged and that, he is not likely to commit any offence MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.22 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----41607 41607 41607 41607---- particularly where such delay(s) is neither attributable to the accused nor justified at the end of the prosecution by cogent reasons. An individual petition in a case governed by the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 6.4. stated to be involved in a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 the Hon’ble Cal ----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 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 li 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 the cases under the Act, has provided for the co 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 judiciou 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 into punitive imprison 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 funda 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.” Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved in multiple cases/FIRs. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of 6666 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 individual e 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 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 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 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 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 a case pertaining to commercial quantity, on the ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is . However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. ; a Division Bench judgment of cutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) 6666 while on bail. The stringent rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 must be meticulously scrutinized against the backdrop of accused’s fe 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 e 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 nstitution of special Courts Nelson’s to the protracted delays and systematic inefficiency that frustrate this bound to ensure that it does 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, s 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 ment, , the unequivocal inference is that where the trial has failed to conclude within a reasonable time, resulting in prolonged mental 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 a case pertaining to commercial quantity, on the ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is . However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. ; a Division Bench judgment of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.22 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----41607 41607 41607 41607---- RCR (Criminal) 477 RCR (Criminal) 477 RCR (Criminal) 477 RCR (Criminal) 477 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. undertrial is not warranted in the facts 7. ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnis 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: ----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) RCR (Criminal) 477 RCR (Criminal) 477 RCR (Criminal) 477 RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnis 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 cellp Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. (viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first 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 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 7777 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an and circumstances of the case. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is 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. The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in 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 7777 2022 , decided on 29.11.2021, and Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is hing bail/surety bonds to /Duty Magistrate. However, trial nd by the following The petitioner 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 The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the hone 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. 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.22 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----41607 41607 41607 41607---- 8. which may be imposed by concerned hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to mo petitioner. 9. 10. opinion on the merits of the case. 11. application, i August 21 August 21 August 21 August 21,,,, 2025 2025 2025 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: ----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to mo 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 which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous f any, shall also stands disposed off. ((((SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)))) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE 8888 which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those /Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the ve 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 2025.08.22 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment