CRM-M-28526-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 214 CRM-M-28526-2026 Decided on :02.09.2026 Gorkha Singh . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Abhishek Sidhu, Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Adeshwar Singh Pannu, Asst. A.G., Punjab. **** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1. Present second petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail in FIR No. 32 dated 28.03.2025, registered under Sections 22/29/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Shambhu, District Patiala. First bail petition, i.e. CRM-M-8096-2026, was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 25.03.2026 (P-5), while noticing that 4200 tablets of Alprazolam were allegedly recovered from the petitioner. Hence, present second petition has been filed seeking regular bail. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the charges were framed on 18.11.2025, despite repeated opportunities having been granted thereafter, not a single prosecution witness has been examined before the learned Trial Court. It is submitted that for more LAVISHA 2026.09.03 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-28526-2026 2 than nine months after the framing of charges, the trial has not progressed even to the stage of examination of prosecution witnesses. The dates and proceedings relied upon by learned counsel, as noticed in the petition, are as under: Date Proceedings 08.12.2025 “No PW is present” 22.12.2025 “No PW is present” 02.01.2026 “No PW is present” 16.01.2026 “No PW is present” 31.01.2026 “No PW is present” 13.02.2026 “No PW is present” 27.02.2026 “No PW is present” 18.03.2026 “No PW is present” 07.04.2026 “No PW is present” 30.04.2026 “No PW is present” 14.05.2026 “No PW is present” 17.07.2026 Accused -Gorkha, Gurcharan not produced by jail authorities 20.08.2026 Accused -Gorkha, Gurcharan produced through V.C, next date fixed is 24.09.2026 for summoning of PW’s It is, thus, evident from the aforesaid chronology that, despite the framing of charges on 18.11.2025, prosecution has not been able to examine even a single witness till date. On as many as eleven dates, absence of prosecution witnesses were recorded. The matter has thereafter continued to be adjourned, and the next date has now been fixed as 24.09.2026 for summoning of prosecution witnesses. 3. The aforesaid position assumes significance while considering the petitioner's prayer for bail, particularly when he has LAVISHA 2026.09.03 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-28526-2026 3 already undergone a substantial period of incarceration and the trial has failed to make any meaningful progress despite repeated opportunities. 4. The question of personal liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, assumes significance in such circumstances. Petitioner is stated to have clean antecedents and, as contended, is required to remain in custody primarily on account of lapses attributable to the official witnesses, namely, the police officials. The question that arises for consideration is whether an accused can be made to suffer incarceration for an indefinite period on account of lapses or omissions on the part of the prosecution, particularly when the witnesses who are yet to be examined are official witnesses. There would be no satisfactory answer to a situation where, at the conclusion of the trial, the petitioner is ultimately acquitted after having remained behind bars for several years. In such an eventuality, who would compensate him for the irreparable loss caused to his personal life, liberty, family circumstances and future career? Deprivation of liberty for an extended period, if ultimately found to be unwarranted, may result in consequences which cannot adequately be remedied by any subsequent order. 5. The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that incarceration of an accused has consequences not merely for him but also for the members of his family who may be dependent upon him for their livelihood. The State is expected to remain sensitive to such consequences and cannot afford to approach the issue of prolonged LAVISHA 2026.09.03 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-28526-2026 4 incarceration with a casual or relaxed attitude. In the present case, the petitioner is stated to have four minor children who are dependent upon him. 6. The object and spirit of the criminal justice system is not merely to arrest a person against whom an allegation of commission of an offence has been made. The State, through the prosecuting agency, also carries the corresponding responsibility of conducting the prosecution with due diligence and ensuring that the proceedings are brought to their logical conclusion without unnecessary delay. The prosecution cannot be permitted to derive an advantage from its own lapses, particularly where such lapses have a direct bearing upon the continued custody of the accused. 7. This Court is conscious of the fact that the allegations against the petitioner arise under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and that the alleged recovery is required to be considered in the light of the statutory restrictions governing the grant of bail. However, the seriousness of the allegations cannot, by itself, justify indefinite incarceration when the trial has not progressed for reasons which are not attributable to the petitioner. The right to a speedy trial is an integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly the substantial period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner, the lack of meaningful progress in the trial despite repeated LAVISHA 2026.09.03 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-28526-2026 5 opportunities, and the fact that the delay in the examination of prosecution witnesses is not attributable to the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. 9. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove are confined to the adjudication of the present bail petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The learned Trial Court shall proceed to decide the case independently, on the basis of the evidence available on record, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. 10. Learned State Counsel is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the concerned authorities in the State for information and necessary compliance. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE September 02, 2026 Rashmi LAVISHA 2026.09.03 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh