CRM-M-28237-2026 and other connected case 1 217 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CRM-M-28237-2026 Date of Decision: 23.07.2026 HARPREET SINGH @ HAPPY ...Petitioner Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent 2. CRM-M-20237-2026 Date of Decision: 23.07.2026 JATINDER SINGH ...Petitioner Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Ms.Manju Fulara, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Navreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab. VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral) 1. The present two petitions, i.e. CRM-M-28237-2026 (third petition) and CRM-M-20237-2026 (second petition), under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS") (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), have been filed by the petitioners seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No.24 dated 07.05.2024, registered under Section 21(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Behrampur, District Gurdaspur, Punjab, during the pendency of trial. Since both the aforesaid petitions arise out of the same FIR and involve common questions of facts and law, the same are being taken up together and are being decided by this common order. KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-28237-2026 and other connected case 2 2. As per the prosecution case, on 07.05.2024, a police party headed by SI Avtar Singh had laid a naka on the road leading towards Village Mallian for checking of vehicles. During the checking, a Swift Dzire car bearing registration No. PB-10-ER-4627 was intercepted. The driver, namely Jatinder Singh, and the occupant sitting on the front seat, namely Harpreet Singh @ Happy (the petitioner), allegedly attempted to flee but were apprehended by the police officials. Both the accused were informed of their legal right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, whereupon they opted to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. Consequently, Sh. Ajay Kumar, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Narcotics) reached the spot. During the personal search of the petitioner, a black polythene bag containing 420 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered from the left pocket of his trousers. The contraband was sealed and taken into possession in accordance with law, while the car was also seized. On the basis of the aforesaid recovery, the present FIR was registered against the petitioner and the co-accused under Sections 21(c), of the NDPS Act. After completion of the investigation, the challan has been presented before the learned Trial Court. Role of petitioner in CRM-M-28237-2026 2.1 The petitioner Harpreet Singh @ Happy was travelling in the Swift Dzire car along with co-accused Jatinder Singh and 420 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered from the left pocket of his trousers during his search conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. He is alleged to be in conscious possession of commercial quantity of contraband and booked under Section 21(C) of the NDPS Act. KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-28237-2026 and other connected case 3 Role of petitioner in CRM-M-20237-2026 2.2 The role attributed to co-accused Jatinder Singh is that he was driving the Swift Dzire car bearing registration No. PB-10-ER-4627 along with petitioner Harpreet Singh @ Happy. During investigation, he allegedly suffered a disclosure statement regarding concealment of another packet of heroin, pursuant to which 500 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered from a field in Village Chuhar Chak. Submissions on behalf of the petitioner-Harpreet Singh @ Happy 3.1 Learned counsel appearing for petitioner Harpreet Singh @ Happy submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the alleged recovery of 420 grams of heroin is sought to be attributed to the petitioner, however, the recovery proceedings are disputed and the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with in their true spirit. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been in custody for more than two years, the investigation stands completed, the challan has already been presented, and there is no requirement of any further custodial interrogation. 3.2 It is further submitted that charges were initially framed on 21.10.2024 and were subsequently amended and re-framed on 13.02.2026, but despite citation of 13 prosecution witnesses, only one witness has been examined after re-framing of charges till date. Therefore, the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Learned counsel argues that continued incarceration of the petitioner would amount to pre-trial punishment and the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail, particularly in view of the prolonged custody period. KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-28237-2026 and other connected case 4 3.3 It is not disputed that the petitioner had earlier approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur for grant of regular bail, which was declined vide order dated 31.10.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CRM-M-3349-2025 before this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 04.08.2025. The petitioner again filed CRM-M-59303-2025 before this Court, which was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 26.02.2026. Submissions on behalf of the petitioner-Jatinder Singh 4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner Jatinder Singh submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and no recovery of contraband was effected from his conscious possession. It is contended that the alleged recovery of 420 grams of heroin was effected from co-accused Harpreet Singh @ Happy and not from the present petitioner. The alleged recovery of 500 grams of heroin is stated to have been effected from a field situated at Village Chuhar Chak on the basis of the alleged disclosure statement of the petitioner; however, the petitioner is neither the owner nor in possession of the said land and no independent evidence has been collected to connect him with the alleged recovery. 4.1 Learned counsel further submits that the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with and the notice issued under the said provision was defective, thereby making the alleged recovery proceedings doubtful. It is argued that the investigation stands completed, the challan has already been presented, and there is no requirement for further custodial interrogation of the petitioner. KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-28237-2026 and other connected case 5 4.2 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been in custody for almost two years. Although charges were framed on 21.10.2024 and were subsequently amended and re-framed on 13.02.2026, none of the 13 prosecution witnesses has been examined till date. Therefore, the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. It is contended that prolonged incarceration cannot be justified merely on account of the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, particularly when the petitioner has already undergone substantial custody. 4.3 It is further submitted that the petitioner had earlier approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur for grant of regular bail, which was declined vide order dated 18.09.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CRM-M-3345-2025 before this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 04.08.2025. 5. Notice of motion. 6. Ms. Navreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has filed the custody certificates dated 22.07.2026, along with status report (in CRM-M-28237-2026) by way of affidavit of DSP, Sub Division Dina Nagar, District Gurdaspur, on behalf of respondent/State in Court today, which are taken on record, copy of the same has been supplied to the counsel opposite. 6.1 Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail and submits that the present case involves recovery of commercial quantity of heroin. It is contended that 420 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered from petitioner Harpreet Singh @ Happy, whereas pursuant to the disclosure statement of petitioner Jatinder Singh, 500 grams of heroin was allegedly KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-28237-2026 and other connected case 6 recovered from the field at Village Chuhar Chak, making the total recovery 920 grams. Learned State counsel submits that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted and the petitioners have failed to satisfy the twin conditions prescribed therein. It is argued that the plea regarding violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is a matter of evidence to be considered during trial. It is further submitted that petitioner Harpreet Singh @ Happy is directly attributed the recovery of contraband from his possession, whereas petitioner Jatinder Singh is connected with the recovery effected pursuant to his disclosure statement. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at considerable length and have carefully perused the paper book as well as the material placed on record with their able assistance. 8. The right to a speedy trial is an integral facet of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The constitutional mandate is not confined merely to ensuring a fair trial but also obligates the State to conclude criminal proceedings within a reasonable time so that the process itself does not become punitive. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, 1980 (1) SCC 81, authoritatively held that the right to a speedy trial is an essential and integral part of Article 21, and that any procedure which permits prolonged incarceration without expeditious trial cannot be regarded as fair, just or reasonable. The aforesaid principles are in consonance with the Constitution Bench decisions in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, 1992 (1) SCC 225, and P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-28237-2026 and other connected case 7 2002 (4) SCC 578, wherein it was held that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right flowing from Article 21 and constitutional courts are duty- bound to intervene wherever inordinate and unexplained delay results in denial of substantive justice. 10. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 322 and in Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 (2) SSC(Criminal) 271, the Court categorically held that "the right to a speedy trial, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence." It was further held that prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without commencement or reasonable progress of the trial, effectively converts pre-trial detention into a form of punishment and cannot be CRM-M-21208-2026 (O&M) -5- constitutionally sustained. The Court observed that if the State or the prosecuting agency is unable to secure an accused's fundamental right to a speedy trial, it cannot oppose the grant of bail merely on the ground of the seriousness of the allegations, as Article 21 prevails over statutory restrictions where continued incarceration becomes oppressive and justified. 11. This constitutional position has acquired greater significance in prosecutions under special statutes containing restrictive bail provisions. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is undoubtedly a stringent penal statute enacted to combat the menace of illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The principle was specifically applied to prosecutions under the NDPS Act in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352. The Apex Court held that Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be construed so rigidly as to compel KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-28237-2026 and other connected case 8 indefinite incarceration of an undertrial merely because the trial has not progressed. The Court observed that a literal interpretation of Section 37, divorced from constitutional values, would amount to sanctioning punitive detention before conviction. It was emphatically held that where the State is unable to conclude the trial within a reasonable time, the rigours of Section 37 necessarily yield to the constitutional mandate of Article 21. The Court further observed that Section 436A Cr.P.C. applies even to prosecutions under special statutes and constitutes an important legislative safeguard against indefinite pretrial detention. 12. Recently, in Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109 and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC Online SC 1693, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that prolonged incarceration militates against the most cherished fundamental right under Article 21. The Court observed that where the accused has remained in custody for an unduly long period and the trial is nowhere near completion, constitutional liberty must prevail over the statutory embargo contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Court succinctly held that conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo when the constitutional guarantee itself stands threatened. Similarly, the Apex Court has recently reaffirmed these constitutional principles in. 13. Thus, the legal position that emerges from the above authorities is that while offences under the NDPS Act are undoubtedly grave and the statutory conditions governing bail are stringent, the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21 remains paramount. Courts are required to balance the societal interest in effective prosecution with the individual's KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-28237-2026 and other connected case 9 fundamental right to personal liberty. Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial without meaningful progress in the trial cannot be justified merely by invoking the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In such exceptional circumstances, Constitutional Courts are duty-bound to harmonise the statutory restrictions with the fundamental right to personal liberty and ensure that pre-trial detention does not degenerate into punishment before adjudication of guilt. Where delay is inordinate and not attributable to the accused, constitutional courts are empowered to grant appropriate relief so as to prevent violation of Article 21. 14. It is equally relevant to note that while Section 37 prescribes stringent conditions for grant of bail, the NDPS Act itself reflects the legislative intent that such prosecutions should proceed expeditiously. Section 36 empowers the Government to constitute Special Courts for the very purpose of ensuring speedy trial of NDPS offences. Therefore, the statutory scheme itself proceeds on the assumption that greater restrictions on bail are constitutionally sustainable only when accompanied by equally expeditious adjudication. Where the State fails to provide the infrastructure necessary for speedy disposal, continued reliance upon Section 37 alone would produce an unconstitutional imbalance between individual liberty and societal interest. Delay defeats that legislative premise. If trials remain pending for years because of systemic inadequacies, repeated adjournments, non-production of witnesses, or institutional delays not attributable to the accused, continued incarceration ceases to be preventive and assumes a punitive character. 15. Be that as it may, considering the custody period already undergone by both the petitioners, who have remained in judicial custody for KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-28237-2026 and other connected case 10 almost two years, and the fact that the investigation stands concluded and the challan has already been presented before the learned Trial Court, the petitioners are no longer required for any further custodial interrogation. It is noticed that the alleged recovery of 420 grams of heroin is attributed to petitioner Harpreet Singh @ Happy from his personal search, whereas the alleged recovery of 500 grams of heroin against petitioner Jatinder Singh is stated to have been effected pursuant to his disclosure statement from a field situated at Village Chuhar Chak. The issues regarding the manner of recovery, compliance with the statutory provisions of the NDPS Act, conscious possession of the contraband and the evidentiary value of the disclosure statement are matters to be considered during the course of trial. It is further noticed that charges have already been framed and though 13 prosecution witnesses have been cited, only one witness has been examined till date. The trial is, therefore, likely to take considerable time to reach its logical conclusion. In these circumstances, keeping the petitioners incarcerated for an indefinite period would not serve any useful purpose. 16. Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed, and the petitioners are ordered to be admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:- 1. The petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the investigating agency. KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-28237-2026 and other connected case 11 2. The petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall attempt, directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness. 3. The petitioners shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event they are in possession of passports, they shall furnish the particulars before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court. 4. The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the petitioners their permanent residential addresses as well as present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification report on the record. In the event either of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law. 5. The petitioners shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance with law. 6. The petitioners shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential addresses or mobile numbers within seven days from the date of such change. 7. The petitioners shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless his personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. They shall not absent themselves from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-28237-2026 and other connected case 12 learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or their unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of regular bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest. 17. A photocopy of the order be placed on the file of other connected case. (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE 23.07.2026 kv Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-28237-2026 and other connected case 13 8 KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh