CRM-M-44390- 225 225 225 225 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 Jaggi Ram State of Haryana 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 No registered for the off Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act’), at Police Station 2. is an accused of being involved in an FIR 203 kg 600 grams of poppy straw ( the vehicle Tata Ultra bearing No.HP actively involved in the commission of crime as conversation between him -2025 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: versus Haryana HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Parminder Walia, Advocate Mr. Deepak Kumar Grewal, DAG Haryana. ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present second petition has been filed under Section Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No registered for the offences punishable under Section Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances at Police Station Nangal Chaudhary, District Mahendergarh. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 203 kg 600 grams of poppy straw (choora poast the vehicle Tata Ultra bearing No.HP-93A 9674, and the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of crime as conversation between him 1 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----44390 44390 44390 44390----2025 2025 2025 2025 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 MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Kumar Grewal, DAG Haryana. 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.321 dated 05.12.2023, ences punishable under Sections 15C, 61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Nangal Chaudhary, District Mahendergarh. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he pertaining to NDPS Act involving choora poast) allegedly recovered from 93A 9674, and the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of crime as conversation between him 1 2025 2025 2025 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 Petitioner ….Respondent of the for grant of .2023, of the (for short ‘NDPS The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he pertaining to NDPS Act involving ) allegedly recovered from 93A 9674, and the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of crime as conversation between him MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.21 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-44390- and Bani supplier were found in their respective mobile phones and in transporting the aforesaid contraband. 3. is in custody since the prosecution version, available at this stage, suffers from inherent defects as the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with. delayed and the liability thereo accused of the petitioner have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court 07.08.2025 and 43802-2025, respectively petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 01 year. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody in Court, which is taken on record. 5. the available records of the case. 6. investigation was carried out and challan was present -2025 supplier were found in their respective mobile phones and in transporting the aforesaid contraband. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 05.12.2023. Learned counsel has further submitted that ecution version, available at this stage, suffers from inherent defects as the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. accused of the petitioner, namely Harwinder Sharma have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court 07.08.2025 and 19.08.2025 passed in CRM 2025, respectively. Learned counsel has further iterated that petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 01 year. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. Learned State counsel has opposed the present arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody in Court, which is taken on record. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case. The petitioner was arrested on investigation was carried out and challan was present 2 supplier were found in their respective mobile phones and in Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner . Learned counsel has further submitted that ecution version, available at this stage, suffers from inherent defects as the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is f cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Co- Harwinder Sharma & Harmandeep Singh have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court, on passed in CRM-M-23596-2025 and CRM-M- Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 01 year. Thus, regular Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 20.08.2025 I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through The petitioner was arrested on 05.12.2023, whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 01.03.2024. Total 2 supplier were found in their respective mobile phones and in Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner . Learned counsel has further submitted that ecution version, available at this stage, suffers from inherent defects as the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is - Harmandeep Singh , on - the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 01 year. Thus, regular petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned .2025 I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through , whereinafter . Total MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.21 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-44390- 29 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but only 01 has been examined till date. It is not in dispute that co concession of regular bail vide at Bar give rise to debatable issues 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. 6.1. petitioner to sec was dismissed on incarceration of 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 Haryana and Haryana and Haryana and Haryana and principles emerge: -2025 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but only 01 has been examined till It is not in dispute that co-accused of the petitioner have been extended concession of regular bail vide aforesaid orders. at Bar give rise to debatable 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 been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution Indubitably, the present petition is the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 26.04.2024. However, keeping in view further incarceration of the petitioner for a period of 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----2023 2023 2023 2023 titled as Haryana and Haryana and Haryana and Haryana and another another another 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 3 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but only 01 has been examined till accused of the petitioner have been extended aforesaid orders. The rival contentions raised 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 been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution Indubitably, the present petition is the second attempt by the The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner . However, keeping in view further the petitioner for a period of more than 01 year and no 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 titled as Rafiq Khan versus State of Rafiq Khan versus State of Rafiq Khan versus State of Rafiq Khan versus State of ; 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 e 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 3 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but only 01 has been examined till accused of the petitioner have been extended ised 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 been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution attempt by the The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner . However, keeping in view further and no 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 Rafiq Khan versus State of Rafiq Khan versus State of Rafiq Khan versus State of Rafiq Khan versus State of 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.21 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-44390- 6.2. saddled upon the petitioner. by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffe for a period of more than 6.3. Punjab Punjab Punjab Punjab passed in upon the ratio Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar (19 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.245/20 Biswas Alias Subhas vs. The State of West Bengal”; “Nitish Adhikary @ 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 -2025 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 substan 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). having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed. The trial is indeed procrastinating and folly thereof saddled upon the petitioner. As per custody certificate dated by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffe for a period of more than 01 year, 08 months and 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 (19 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 Adhikary @ Bapan vs. The State of West Bengal”, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) 2022 dated 22.08.2022 titled as “Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh 4 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 best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing ive 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 be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed.” he trial is indeed procrastinating and folly thereof cannot be As per custody certificate dated 20.08.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration months and 11 days. 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; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2023 INSC 20 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 4 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 tial 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 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 In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly cannot be .2025 filed red incarceration 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 80) 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 20 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.21 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-44390- 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: prejudice that may result due to impermissible an 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 defend -2025 ate 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 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 above-referred to Supreme Court’s judgments have laid down a series of decisions opening up new vistas 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 restr 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 an 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 Damocle 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 trial imprisonment; secondly, it relieves the accused 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 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 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 5 ate 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 and prevent ng 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 defend hout 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 under onerous 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 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 5 ate 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 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 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 aint 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 d 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 s 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 ng on the Court and the prosecution an obligation to proceed with the trial with a reasonable dispatch. The guarantee serves a - 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 trial detention are grave. Accused, presumed innocent, till proven otherwise, are life, usually 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 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.21 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-44390- 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 individual petition in a case governed by the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 7. stated to be involved in cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the H -2025 rigours enumerated under Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 which mandat 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 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 cannot be kept behind bars for an 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 Cour 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 accu to a fair and expeditious trial. Prolonged incarceration, without justifiable cause, risks transforming pre-trial detention into punitive imprisonment, an outcome antithetical to the principle of justice and equity. Ergo, the unequivocal inference 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 fe of the NDPS Act, 1985.” Further, as per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in multiple other cases/FIRs cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of 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 facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 6 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 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 nnot 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 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, 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 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 Further, as per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is multiple other 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 the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed on’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir 6 es 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 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 nnot 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 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 ts Nelson’s to the protracted delays and systematic inefficiency that frustrate this bound to ensure that it does not become complicit in violation of an individual’s fundamental rights, 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 sed to a fair and expeditious trial. Prolonged incarceration, without justifiable trial detention into punitive imprisonment, 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 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 ttered by Section 37 Further, as per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is However, this factum regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.21 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-44390- Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Court in CRM Haryana Haryana Haryana Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. undertrial is not warranted in the facts 8. ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing 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 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as , decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. 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 furnishing 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 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 Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in 7 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this 2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) 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 ll 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 is 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 7 ; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of judgments of this Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is 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 ll 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 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 concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.21 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-44390- 9. which may be imposed by concerned hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation petitioner. 10. 11. opinion on the merits of the case. 12. application, if any, shall al August 21 August 21 August 21 August 21, 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: -2025 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 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 move cancellation 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 8 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 f 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 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 so stands disposed off. ((((SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)))) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE 8 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 f 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 /Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the 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 2025.08.21 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment