CRM-M-1702 IN THE H (220) HIMANSHU @ H STATE OF HAR CORAM: HON Present: Ms. H Mr. N MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 483 of Bh for grant of regul registered under S Act (for short “ND on) at Police Stati dismissed as withd 2. As p information, the p 04 Kgs. 600 Gram 17023-2026 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH U @ HEMANT @ HIMMAT Versus
HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Ms. Himani Anand, Advocate for the Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana ****
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of F nder Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs rt “NDPS Act”) (Section 29 and 27(a e Station Shahbad, District Kurukshet s withdrawn vide order dated 21.11.202 As per the allegations, on 11.05.20 , the petitioner was apprehended by a Grams of opium was effected from hi JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-17023-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 06.04.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA
for the petitioner petition filed by the petitioner under a Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) ut of FIR No.359 dated 11.05.2024 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances d 27(a) of the NDPS Act added later ukshetra. His previous petition was .11.2025. .05.2024, on the basis of a secret d by a police party and recovery of rom his conscious possession. Upon M) 2026 oner
dent
nder ) 2024 nces later was ecret ry of pon AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.06 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-1702 interrogation, he d one Ashraf Shah, w used to buy opium co-accused. Sub completion of ne presented in the C for commission of Trial Court for gra dated 24.12.2024. 3. It is a falsely implicated The mandatory pr Each day spent by afresh. The petiti conclusion of the examined so far. by detaining him Devi have already extended the same allowed and the pe 4. Notic 17023-2026 (O&M) 2 n, he disclosed that the recovered cont Shah, who was arrested on 17.05.2024 opium from co-accused and used to se Subsequently, the other co-accuse of necessary investigation and us the Court and the petitioner alongwit sion of aforesaid offence. He had mo for grant of regular bail but the same .2024. It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case and a false recover ory provisions of the NDPS Act wer ent by him in custody has furnished h petitioner is in custody since 17.05.2 of the trial in the near future as no far. He has clean antecedents. No u g him in custody anymore. The co lready been granted benefit of bail. O e same benefit. It is, therefore, urged the petitioner deserves to be released Notice of motion. d contraband was supplied to him by 5.2024, who further disclosed that he d to sell to one Leela Devi and other accused were also arrested. After nd usual formalities, challan was ngwith the co-accused is facing trial ad moved an application before the same had been dismissed vide order l for the petitioner that he has been ecovery has been effected from him. ct were not properly complied with. shed him a new ground to move bail 7.05.2026. There are no chances of as no prosecution witness has been No useful purpose would be served he co-accused Riyajudin and Leela ail. On parity, he too deserves to be urged that the petition deserves to be eased on regular bail. m by at he other After was trial e the order been him. with. bail es of been rved eela to be to be AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.06 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-1702 5. Learn filed custody certi against the petitio contraband had be NDPS Act are attr is not maintainable be extended benef 6. This C for the parties at co 7. The p indulged in smugg by the police and possession. The subject offences a 17.05.2024. The H accused cannot be application can be has also been held action for filing a part of the broad to balance the righ system. Prolonged 17023-2026 (O&M) 3 Learned State counsel has advance n y certificate and is ready to argue. He petitioner are quite serious in natu had been recovered from his conscious re attracted in this case. The present p ainable. It is, therefore, urged that the benefit of bail. This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. The petitioner alongwith the co-acc smuggling of the contraband. The pe e and 04 Kgs. 600 Grams of opium w The allegations make out prima faci nces as against the petitioner. How The Hon’ble Apex Court has observ not be kept in custody for an indefini can be considered on its own merits e n held that every day spent in custod ling a bail application under certain ci broader approach emphasizing that la he rights of the accused with the requi longed detention itself is a ground fo ance notice of the petition. He has e. He has argued that the allegations n nature. Commercial quantity of scious possession. Section 37 of the esent petition being a successive one hat the petitioner does not deserve to submission made by learned counsel accused is alleged to have been The petitioner has been apprehended ium was effected from his conscious a facie case for commission of the However, he is in custody since observed in a catena of cases that an definite period of time, and the bail erits even if it is filed repeatedly. It custody can provide a new cause of rtain circumstances. This principle is that law prefers bail over jail, aiming requirements of the criminal justice und for reconsideration of bail since has tions y of e one ve to unsel been nded cious f the since at an bail ly. It se of le is ming stice since AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.06 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-1702 the settled princip punitive. It is wel delay in trial and Section 37 of the observations made State (NCT of Del of bail on accoun Section 37 of the which is applicabl overcrowded and t danger of unjusti hardened rather th and Another v. No.8656 of 2023 2023 LiveLaw (S benefit of bail to observing that pr fundamental right situation, the con contained under Se 8. Relia Chhattishgarh & pronounced verdic 17023-2026 (O&M) 4 principle of law is that detention prio is well settled proposition of law tha l and long period of incarceration is t of the NDPS Act. Reliance in this re s made by Hon’ble Apex Court in M f Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, ccount of undue delay in trial canno of the NDPS Act, given the imperativ plicable to offence under the Act. It w d and their living conditions are, more unjustified imprisonment is that inm ther than reformed. Reliance can also v. State of West Bengal, Specia 023 decided on 14.09.2023 and Rab w (SC) 533, wherein the Hon’ble ail to the accused who had been inca hat prolonged incarceration militate l right guaranteed under Article 21 of e constitutional principles must ov nder Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reliance can also be placed upon h & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.48 verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court ob on prior to trial should not become aw that grant of bail on account of on is to be considered in the light of this regard can be placed upon the in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. 352, wherein it was held that grant cannot be said to be fettered under erative of Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. ct. It was also observed that jails are , more often than not, appalling. The at inmates are more likely to be n also be placed upon Manmandal pecial Leave Petition (Criminal) Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, n’ble Supreme Court had extended n incarcerated for a long period by ilitated against the most precious 21 of the Constitution and in such a st override the statutory embargo upon Santosh Pawar Vs. State of o.4883/2025, which is a recently ourt observing that rigors of Section ome nt of ht of n the v. grant nder .P.C. s are . The o be dal al) ha, nded by cious ch a argo of ently ction AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.06 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-1702 37 of NDPS Act w as it comes with completion of tria held that appella commercial quant incarceration for a 9. Simil v. Central Bureau and inordinate del considered the cor including Section 436A (which requ not concluded wit would apply.
10. In th Crminal Appeal quantity of narcoti of bail to the accus and 08 months of t 11. Simil No.15699-2025 tit 17023-2026 (O&M) 5 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 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 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 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 r bail early ourt n of f her ntil ation hich ents, ction ial is 1973 an rcial nefit years LP gal AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.06 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-1702 and in the case of of 2025.
12. On an case in the light o petitioner has suf months and 17 day out of 21 prosecu detention of the p nothing on record participate in the t 13. In vie case is made out f petition is allowed his furnishing pers trial Court/Chief J 14. In the petitioner, it shall application seekin 15. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 17023-2026 (O&M) 6 ase of Pamesh Arora vs. UT Chandig On analyzing the peculiar facts and light of the aforementioned principle as suffered prolonged incarceration 7 days, the trial is not likely to be co rosecution witnesses have been exa f the petitioner is not likely to serve record to show that if released on 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 In the event of there being any FIR t shall be open to the respondent-State seeking cancellation of bail. It is, however, clarified that the obse an expression of opinion of this C t influence the outcome of the trial in a ndigarh Criminal Appeal No.4872 ts and circumstances of the present nciples of law, it transpires that the ation for a period of 01 years, 10 be concluded in near future as none n examined so far. The continued serve any fruitful purpose; there is ed 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. y FIR/complaint lodged against the State to seek redressal by filing an e observations made above shall not this Court on the merits of the case ial in any manner.
72 esent t the 10 none nued re is l not hat a , the ct to rned t the g an l not case AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.06 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-1702 16. Since any, is rendered in 06.04.2026 Amit Sharma 17023-2026 (O&M) 7 Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes
  
allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
Yes/No
n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.06 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.