CRM-M-36342-2026 1 215 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36342-2026 Date of Decision: 28.07.2026 TEJBIR SINGH ALIAS TEJI ...Petitioner Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab. VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral) 1. The present third petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 106 dated 02.07.2025, registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 21(c), 25(1A), 25(1B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, with Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Arms Act, 1959 added subsequently, at Police Station Sadar, District Amritsar, Punjab, in the interest of justice. 2. The prosecution case is that on 02.07.2025, while the police party headed by ASI Jaspal Singh of CIA Staff-I, Amritsar was present near Fatehgarh Churian Road Bypass Chowk, Amritsar on patrol duty and checking suspicious persons, a secret informer approached the Investigating Officer and informed that Jaspreet Singh @ Kalu, Harpreet Singh @ Happy and Tejbir Singh @ Teji were in contact with gangsters engaged in smuggling illegal country-made and foreign-made firearms and were travelling in a Maruti Suzuki Ritz car bearing registration No. PB-27K-5235 from Verka Bypass KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.29 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36342-2026 2 towards Majitha Road Bypass for the purpose of supplying illegal weapons. The informer further disclosed that if a naka was laid and the said vehicle was intercepted, the accused persons could be apprehended and a large quantity of illegal weapons could be recovered from their possession. Treating the information to be reliable and credible, the Investigating Officer reduced the same into writing and sent a ruqa to the Police Station, on the basis of which FIR No. 106 dated 02.07.2025 was registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Sadar, District Police Commissionerate, Amritsar. During the course of investigation, 1 kilogram of heroin, constituting commercial quantity under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, was allegedly recovered from co-accused Jaspreet Singh @ Kalu. Consequently, Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, along with Sections 25(1-A), 25(1-B), 6, 7 and 8 of the Arms Act, 1959, were added in the present case. Upon completion of the investigation, the final report (challan) was presented before the learned Special Court for trial. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no connection with the alleged offence. It is contended that the petitioner has been nominated merely on the basis of bald allegations and no specific role has been attributed to him in the FIR except that he was allegedly travelling along with the co-accused. Learned counsel further submits that no recovery of any contraband or weapon has been effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner and the alleged recovery of 1 kilogram of heroin, constituting commercial quantity, was effected from co-accused Jaspreet Singh @ Kalu. It is further argued that no independent witness was associated with the search and KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.29 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36342-2026 3 recovery proceedings despite their availability, thereby rendering the prosecution case doubtful. Learned counsel also contends that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly Sections 42, 50 and 52, have not been duly complied with and there was an unexplained delay in sending the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory. It is further submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody since 02.07.2025, the investigation stands concluded, the challan has already been presented before the learned Trial Court, no further recovery is to be effected from the petitioner and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. It is further submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed two petitions seeking regular bail. The first petition, bearing CRM-M-61185-2025, was dismissed as not pressed at that stage vide order dated 10.11.2025. Thereafter, the second petition, bearing CRM-M- 2858-2026, was dismissed vide order dated 23.01.2026. Accordingly, prayer has been made for grant of regular bail. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate dated 27.07.2026, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone a total custody period of 01 year 20 days. 6. Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer for grant of regular bail, submits that the petitioner is involved in a serious offence under the NDPS Act involving the recovery of 1 kilogram of heroin, which falls within the category of commercial quantity. It is contended that the petitioner was travelling along with the co-accused pursuant to a specific secret KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.29 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36342-2026 4 information and was apprehended during the operation conducted by the police. Learned State counsel further submits that during the course of investigation, sufficient material has been collected to prima facie connect the petitioner with the commission of the alleged offences. It is argued that in view of the recovery of commercial quantity, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted and the petitioner has failed to satisfy the twin conditions prescribed therein. Accordingly, prayer has been made for dismissal of the present petition. 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, 2002 (4) SCC 578, wherein it was held that the right to a speedy trial is a KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.29 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36342-2026 5 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 indefinite incarceration of an undertrial merely because the trial has not KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.29 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36342-2026 6 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 fundamental right to personal liberty. Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.29 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36342-2026 7 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, this Court has considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The petitioner has remained in judicial custody since 02.07.2025. It KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.29 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36342-2026 8 is not disputed that the investigation stands concluded and the final report (challan) has already been presented before the learned Trial Court. A perusal of the recovery memo prima facie reveals that one pistol along with three live cartridges of .302 bore was allegedly recovered from the possession of co- accused Harpreet Singh @ Happy, whereas three 9 mm pistols stated to be made in Austria and one country-made .30 bore pistol along with magazines were allegedly recovered from the bag carried by co-accused Jaspreet Singh @ Kalu. Significantly, no contraband, firearm, ammunition or any other incriminating article was recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner. Although the prosecution alleges the petitioner's involvement by invoking the provisions of Section 29 of the NDPS Act, the nature and extent of his alleged complicity are matters to be examined on the basis of the evidence that may be led during the course of trial and cannot be conclusively determined at this stage. It is further noticed that charges are yet to be framed, and therefore, the commencement and conclusion of the trial are likely to take considerable time. The petitioner is no longer required for custodial interrogation. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice either side during trial, this Court is of the considered view that continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. 16. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is 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:- KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.29 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36342-2026 9 1. The petitioner 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. 2. The petitioner 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 petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event he is in possession of a passport, he shall furnish its 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 petitioner his permanent residential address 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 petitioner 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 petitioner shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential address or mobile number within seven days from the date of such change. KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.29 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36342-2026 10 7. The petitioner 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. He shall not absent himself from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or his 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. (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE 28.07.2026 kv Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.29 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh