CRM-M-15642- IN THE H (214) RAVINDER STATE OF HAR CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Mr. N MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 483 of Bh for grant of regul registered under S (for short “NDPS two petitions as fil 2. As pe was recovered fro co-accused, who w -2026 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH Versus HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Rajesh Tushar, Advocate for the Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana **** BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant one is the third petition of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh regular bail in case arising out of F nder Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and DPS Act”) at Police Station Ladwa, D s as filed by him had been dismissed a As per the allegations, on 01.08.2024 ed from the conscious possession of who were formally arrested and are in JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-15642-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.04.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA or the petitioner etition filed by the petitioner under a Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) ut of FIR No.301 dated 01.08.2024 gs and Psychotropic Substances Act , District Kurukshetra. Previous issed as withdrawn. .2024, 01 kg and 10 grams of charas ion of the present petitioner and the are in custody since then. 2026 oner dent nder SS”) 2024 s Act ious haras d the AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.27 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-15642- 3. It is a a change in the c allegations were le that on parity, he t that each day spen to make prayer for to be allowed. 4. Status State counsel. It successive petition the petitioner and the supplier of the may be expedited. allowed. 5. This considerable lengt 6. The p quantity of contrab allegations agains subject offences b this petition being accused has a righ the duty of the Co -2026 (O&M) 2 It is argued by learned counsel for the the circumstances as the co-accuse were levelled has since been extended ty, he too deserves to be extended the s y spent by him in custody has furnish yer for grant of bail. It is, therefore, ar Status report and custody certificate el. It is argued by learned State c on and is not maintainable. There r and the co-accused Pale Khan showi of the contraband had an active com edited. It is, therefore, argued that the This Court has heard the rival subm e length. The petitioner was apprehended by th contraband had been recovered from h against him prima facie make out a nces by the petitioner. So far as the being successive one is concerned, a right to move successive bail applic the Court, while entertaining such a s for the petitioner that there has been ccused Ajay against whom similar tended benefit of bail. It is stressed d the same benefit. It is also argued urnished a new ground in his favour ore, argued that the petition deserves tificate have been filed by learned tate counsel that the petition is a There is a call detail record between showing that the petitioner who was e complicity in the crime. The trial at the petition does not deserve to be submissions made by the parties at d by the police party and commercial from his conscious possession. The out a case for commission of the as the question of maintainability of rned, it may be mentioned that, an application for grant of bail and it is ch a subsequent bail application, to been milar ssed gued vour erves rned is a ween was trial to be es at rcial The f the ty of t, an it is n, to AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.27 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-15642- consider that any the one taken in th be noted that ever action for filing a kept in custody fo even if it is filed r prosecution must custody since 03. benefit of bail. O otherwise only 01 chances of conclu law that grant o incarceration is to Reliance in this re Apex Court in Mo OnLine SC 352, in trial cannot be the imperative of S the Act. It was conditions are, m imprisonment is reformed. Relianc of West Bengal, S 14.09.2023 and R -2026 (O&M) 3 t any fresh ground which persuade it n in the earlier application is made ou t every day spent by an accused in cu iling a bail application under certain ody for indefinite period and the bail filed repeatedly. The denial of bail c must press for early completion of t ce 03.08.2024. Similarly situated ail. On parity, he too deserves to be e nly 01 prosecution witnesses has been onclusion of trial in the near future. rant of bail on account of delay n is to be considered in the light of this regard can be placed upon the n Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. Sta 52, wherein it was held that grant of ot be said to be fettered under Sectio ve of Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. which was also observed that jails are o are, more often than not, appalling nt is that inmates are more likely eliance can also be placed upon Man al, Special Leave Petition (Criminal nd Rabi Prakash v. State of Odis ade it to take a view different from ade out or not. It is also required to in custody provides a new cause of ertain circumstances. He cannot be e bail application can be considered bail comes with a condition that the n of the trial. The petitioner is in co-accused has been extended to be extended benefit of bail. Even been examined so far. There are no It is well settled proposition of elay in trial and long period of ht of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. the observations made by Hon’ble . State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC ant of bail on account of undue delay Section 37 of the NDPS Act, given which is applicable to offence under are overcrowded and their living palling. The danger of unjustified likely to be hardened rather than Manmandal and Another v. State inal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533, from ed to se of be ered t the is in nded Even re no on of d of Act. ble CC elay iven nder iving tified than tate on 33, AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.27 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-15642- wherein the Hon’b who had been in incarceration milit under Article 21 o principles must ov the NDPS Act. 7. Relia Chhattishgarh & pronounced verdic 37 of NDPS Act w as it comes with completion of tria held that appella commercial quant incarceration for a 8. Simil v. Central Bureau and inordinate del considered the cor including Section 436A (which requ not concluded wit would apply.
-2026 (O&M) 4 Hon’ble Supreme Court had extended een incarcerated for a long period n militated against the most precious le 21 of the Constitution and in such ust override the statutory embargo Reliance can also be placed upon h & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.48 verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court ob Act will not be a bar for considering with a condition that the prosecuti of trial. In the above-mentioned case ppellant who was being prosecuted quantity of narcotic substance, was e n for a period of 19 months.
Similarly in another case i.e. in the c reau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SC te delay engaged the attention of the H he correct approach towards bail, with ection 37 NDPS Act. The court expre h requires inter alia the accused to be ed within specified periods) of the Cr tended benefit of bail to the accused eriod by observing that prolonged ecious fundamental right guaranteed such a situation, the constitutional argo contained under Section 37 of upon Santosh Pawar Vs. State of o.4883/2025, which is a recently ourt observing that rigors of Section ering the case of an accused for bail osecution would press for an early d case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ecuted for being in possession of was entitled for bail in view of her n the case of Satender Kumar Antil 0 SCC 51 prolonged incarceration f the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which l, with respect to several enactments, t expressed the opinion that Section to be enlarged on bail if the trial is the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 used nged teed ional 7 of of ently n r bail early ourt n of f her ntil ation hich ents, ction ial is 1973 AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.27 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-15642- 9. In th Crminal Appeal quantity of narcoti of bail to the accus and 08 months of t 10. Simil No.15699-2025 tit and in the case of of 2025.
11. On an case in the light o petitioner has suf months and 23 da only 01 out of continued detentio There is nothing o participate in the t 12. In vie case is made out f petition is allowed his furnishing pers trial Court/Chief J -2026 (O&M) 5 In the case of Ismail Khan @ Pa eal No.4911 of 2025 with regard narcotic substance, the Hon’ble Supre e accused in view of prolonged incarce ths of the accused.
Similar benefit has been extended 25 titled as Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK ase of Pamesh Arora vs. UT Chandig On analyzing the peculiar facts and light of the aforementioned principle as suffered prolonged incarceration days. The trial is not likely to b t of 14 prosecution witnesses has etention of the petitioner is not likely hing on record to show that if released n the trial or will abscond. In view of the above discussion, this e out for grant of bail to the petitioner llowed and the petitioner is ordered to g personal as well as surety bonds to hief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistr Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan regard to recovery of commercial Supreme Court accorded the benefit incarceration for a period of 02 years ended in another appeal i.e. SLP SK vs. The State of West Bengal ndigarh Criminal Appeal No.4872 ts and circumstances of the present nciples of law, it transpires that the ration for a period of 01 year, 08 ly to be concluded in near future as s been examined so far. The likely to serve any fruitful purpose. leased on bail, the petitioner will not n, this Court is of the opinion that a itioner at this stage. Accordingly, the ered to be released on bail subject to nds to the satisfaction of the learned agistrate concerned. an rcial nefit years LP gal 72 esent t the 08 re as The pose. ll not hat a , the ct to rned AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.27 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-15642- 13. In th conditions, the re seeking cancellatio 14. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 15. Since any, is rendered in 27.04.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 6 In the eventuality of breach of the respondent-State shall be at lib cellation of the bail. It is, however, clarified that the obse d as an expression of opinion of this C t influence the outcome of the trial in a Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes Whether reportable:- Yes/No h of any of the aforementioned at liberty to move an application e observations made above shall not this Court on the merits of the case ial in any manner.
allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No oned ation l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.27 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.