CRM-M-10618- IN THE H (216) GULAB KHAN @ STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Mr. R *** MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 483 of Bh for grant of regul registered under S Act (for short “N Sahib. The previo by this Court vide 2. As pe found in consci namely,Tramado The petitioner alon -2026 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH AN @ ASHU Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Iqbal Singh Mann, Advocate for Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab *** BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant one is the second petition of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh regular bail in case arising out of F nder Section 22C of Narcotic Drugs ort “NDPS Act) at Police Station Ka previous petition bearing CRM-M-47 rt vide order dated 14.01.2025. As per the allegations, the petitione conscious possession of commerc ol Hydrochloride on 19.10.2022, w er along with co-accused is presently JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-10618-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 30.04.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA te for the petitioner Punjab petition filed by the petitioner under a Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) ut of FIR No.162 dated 19.10.2022 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances on Kabarwala, District Sri Muktsar 47565-2023 had been dismissed titioner along with co-accused was mercial quantity of contraband, 022, which was taken into custody. sently facing trial for commission of 2026 oner dent nder SS”) 2022 nces ktsar issed was and, tody. on of AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-10618- the aforementione order dated 14.01 “As p police Tram Singh from contr the r attrac advan comp inves the m while There delay havin learn exten can a discu the q attend -2026 (O&M) 2 ned offences. His previous petit 14.01.2025 by this Court by passing As per the allegations, the petition olice party on 19.10.2022 and ramadol Hydrochloride was effect ingh alias Amna, whereas 3000 of rom petitioner Gulab Khan @ Ashu. ontraband obviously falls under the he rigors of Section 37 of the N ttracted against the petitioners. dvanced by learned counsel for the ompliance of the statutory provisi nvestigation by the police party, the he merits of the case, which canno hile deciding a bail petition filed here is nothing on record to show t elay in conclusion of trial. Since th aving criminal antecedents, the earned Deputy Advocate General, xtended benefit of bail, may abscond an also not be stated to be unfo iscussion as made above, the quan he quantum of sentence which the ttendant facts and circumstances s petition had been dismissed vide following order : itioners were apprehended by the nd recovery of 3500 tablets of ffected from petitioner Amandeep 0 of the same salt were recovered shu. The quantity of the recovered r the commercial quantity. Hence, e NDPS Act would certainly be ers. As regards the arguments the petitioner with regard to non- ovisions of the NDPS Act during , the same have direct bearing on annot be looked into at this stage iled under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. ow that there would be any undue ce the petitioners are shown to be the apprehension expressed by ral, Punjab that the petitioners, if cond or indulge in similar offences unfounded. Keeping in view the quantity of recovered contraband, the conviction may entail and the nces of the case, I am of the vide the of eep red red ce, be nts - ing on ge .C. ue be by , if ces the nd, the the AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-10618- consi benef dismi 3. It is a dismissal of the petitioner, the trial have been produc not appeared for th the trial in near be a reason for den Prolonged incarce trial in near futur Article 21 of the furnished a new g submissions, it is 4. Per co maintainable as t dismissed by passi is no drastic or sub the NDPS Act are stressed that he do 5. This C for the parties at co -2026 (O&M) 3 onsidered opinion that the petitioner enefit of regular bail, at this sta ismissed.” It is argued by learned counsel for th f the previous petition for grant of he trial has not progressed much since roduced and those too have been exa d for their cross-examination. There ar future. His involvement in other for denying benefit of bail to him. He i ncarceration of the petitioner without a future is against the fundamental rig f the Constitution of India. Each day new ground to him to seek benefit of t is argued that he deserves to be ext Per contra, learned State counsel has e as the previous petition as filed y passing a detailed order and this is a or substantive change in the circumst ct are attracted in this case. The trial t he does not deserve to be extended th This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. ioners do not deserve to be granted stage. Hence, the petitions are for the petitioner that ever since the of regular bail as filed by the since only 02 prosecution witnesses examined-in-chief only and have here are no chances of conclusion of other cases cannot be considered to . He is in custody since 19.10.2022. thout any possibility of conclusion of ntal right of liberty enshrined under ch day spent by him in custody has efit of bail afresh. With these broad be extended the benefit of bail. el has argued that the petition is not filed by the petitioner, has been is is a successive bail petition. There rcumstances. Rigors of Section 37 of trial may be expedited. Hence, it is, the benefit of bail. ubmissions made by learned counsel ted are e the the esses have on of ed to . of nder has road s not been here 37 of it is, nsel AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-10618- 6. The p quantity of contrab allegations agains subject offences b this petition being accused has a righ the duty of the Co 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 effected from the 19.10.2022. The t proposition of law of incarceration is Reliance in this re Apex Court in Mo OnLine SC 352, in trial cannot be the imperative of S the Act. It was -2026 (O&M) 4 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 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 th m the petitioner. He has clean antece The trial will take considerable time of law that grant of bail on account of tion is to be considered in the light of this regard can be placed upon the o 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 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 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. No recovery has been antecedents. He is in custody since e time to conclude. It is well settled unt of delay in trial and long period ight 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 ch is applicable to offence under are overcrowded and their living rcial The f the ty of t, an it is n, to from ed to se of ot be ered t the been since ttled eriod Act. ble CC elay iven nder iving AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-10618- conditions are, m imprisonment is reformed. Relianc of West Bengal, S 14.09.2023 and R 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 -2026 (O&M) 5 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 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 c 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 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, 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 tified than tate on 33, used nged teed ional 7 of of ently ction r bail early ourt n of f her ntil ation hich AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-10618- considered the cor including Section 436A (which requ not concluded wit would apply.
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 07 da only 02 out of 1 continued detentio There is nothing o participate in the t -2026 (O&M) 6 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 In the case of Ismail Khan @ Pa eal No.4911 of 2025 with regard narcotic substance, the Hon’ble Supre cused 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 07 days. The trial is not likely to b t of 12 prosecution witnesses have etention of the petitioner is not likely hing on record to show that if released n the trial or will abscond. th respect to several enactments, t expressed the opinion that Section to be enlarged on bail if the trial is the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 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 ation for a period of 03 years, 06 ly to be concluded in near future as have been examined so far. The likely to serve any fruitful purpose. leased on bail, the petitioner will not ents, ction ial is 1973 an rcial nefit years LP gal 72 esent t the s, 06 re as The pose. ll not AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-10618- 12. In vie case is made out f petition is allowed his furnishing pers trial Court/Chief J 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 30.04.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 7 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 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 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. 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 hat a , the ct to rned oned ation l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.