CRM-M-30759-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 216 CRM-M-30759-2026 Decided on :02.09.2026 Bikramjit Singh . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Sukhpreet Singh, Advocate for Mr. Tanvir S. Grewal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adeshwar Singh Pannu, Asst. A.G., Punjab. **** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail in FIR No. 65 dated 23.04.2025, registered under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station City Dhuri, District Sangrur, Punjab. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 23.04.2025, petitioner-Bikramjit Singh @ Vicky was spotted carrying a polythene bag, from which 40 loose intoxicating tablets were allegedly recovered, whereupon the petitioner was arrested. 3. Initially, in the absence of the FSL report, petitioner was ordered to be released on interim bail, awaiting determination of the total weight of the contraband and the actual contents of the loose intoxicating RASHMI 2026.09.02 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30759-2026 2 tablets. Upon receipt of the FSL report, it was confirmed that the tablets recovered from the polythene bag carried by the petitioner contained the salt Etizolam. The weight of each tablet was found to be 161 mg. Accordingly, the total weight of the 40 recovered tablets comes to 6.44 grams (40 × 161 mg). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated and that the recovery has been planted upon him, as he was already known to the police officials and has been involved in a number of cases of similar nature. It is, however, submitted that the petitioner has not been convicted in any of those cases till date. Learned counsel further submits that there being no finding recorded by any Court of law holding the petitioner guilty of any offence under the provisions of the NDPS Act, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act ought not to be applied mechanically, particularly in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is the sole accused in the present case. After completion of investigation, the challan was presented and charges were framed on 31.10.2025. However, out of total of 10 prosecution witnesses, not a single witness has been examined till date. Petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of 01 year, 01 month and 01 day. It is, therefore, contended that there has been no meaningful progress in the trial and, in view of the slow pace of the proceedings, the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. RASHMI 2026.09.02 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30759-2026 3 Learned counsel further submits that the delay in the progress of the trial is not attributable to the petitioner, but is on account of the non-examination of the prosecution witnesses, despite the matter having been fixed before the learned Trial Court for recording of their statements. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a young person aged about 28 years is facing number of cases against him without realizing by the State that the life of the person is being spoiled and at the same time State agency is not keen to get examined the witness(s) despite the trial being fixed before the trial Court for the said purpose for recording of their statement, thus, prays for grant of regular bail. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel, while producing the custody certificate of the petitioner, confirms the period of incarceration as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner. However, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail and submits that petitioner is habitually involved in criminal activities, as he is stated to be involved in nine other cases registered under the provisions of the NDPS Act. It is submitted that the present case, therefore, cannot be treated as an isolated or ordinary case, particularly in view of the repeated involvement of the petitioner in cases under the NDPS Act. Learned State counsel further submits that the alleged recovery in the present case, as confirmed by the FSL report, pertains to Etizolam-containing tablets and the matter is required to be considered in RASHMI 2026.09.02 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30759-2026 4 the light of the statutory provisions and restrictions governing the grant of bail under the NDPS Act. Thus, prays for dismissal of present petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 8. Petitioner is in custody for a period of last 01 year, 01 month and 01 day. Charges were framed on 31.10.2025 and, despite the passage of considerable time thereafter, not a single prosecution witness out of the total 10 witnesses has been examined till date. Thus, trial has not made any meaningful progress and is likely to take considerable time to conclude. 9. This Court, while dealing with cases arising from the State of Punjab, particularly those under the provisions of the NDPS Act, has been noticing with increasing frequency that official witnesses do not appear before the Courts with the requisite promptness for recording of their evidence. The present case is also reflective of the same position. Despite framing of charges on 31.10.2025, not a single prosecution witness has been examined till date. 10. The objection raised by learned State counsel regarding the petitioner's involvement in nine other cases under the NDPS Act has also been considered. There is, however, no convincing explanation forthcoming as to why, if the petitioner was already involved in those cases and had been granted bail in some of them, the State, in case of any alleged misuse of the concession of bail, did not move an appropriate application seeking cancellation of such bail. Mere involvement in other RASHMI 2026.09.02 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30759-2026 5 criminal cases, particularly when none of those cases has resulted in the petitioner's conviction till date, cannot by itself justify his continued incarceration in the present case. 11. 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, 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. An accused cannot be made to suffer incarceration indefinitely on account of delay in the progress of the trial, particularly when such delay is not attributable to the accused. 12. In the aforesaid circumstances, the question of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India assumes significance. Petitioner has already undergone substantial incarceration, whereas the trial has not progressed beyond the stage of examination of prosecution witnesses. Continued incarceration for an indefinite period, when the trial itself is likely to take considerable time, would have serious consequences which cannot adequately be remedied subsequently. 13. This Court is conscious of the fact that the present case arises under the provisions of the NDPS Act and that the statutory restrictions governing grant of bail are required to be kept in view. However, having regard to the totality of the circumstances, including the RASHMI 2026.09.02 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30759-2026 6 period of incarceration already undergone, the stage of the trial that none of the 10 prosecution witnesses has been examined till date, the petitioner's non-conviction in the other cases relied upon by the State, and the absence of any material to show that the concession of bail granted in those cases was ever sought to be cancelled on account of its misuse, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner carry considerable force. 14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the 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. 15. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Learned trial Court shall proceed to decide the case independently, on the basis of evidence available on record, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. 16. Petition stands disposed. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 02.09.2026 Rashmi Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RASHMI 2026.09.02 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document