CRM-M-43952-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 237 CRM-M-43952-2026 Date of decision: 03rd September, 2026 Arshpreet Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Sharma, AAG, Punjab. *** MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):- The instant one is the third petition that has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to him in case bearing FIR No. 66 dated 23.06.2024, registered under Sections 15, 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Shambu, District Patiala. His first petition was dismissed on 29.07.2025, whereas his second petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.02.2026. 2. The petitioner has been booked in the aforesaid case and is facing trial therein on the allegations that on 23.06.2024, recovery of 500 grams of PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.09.07 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43952-2026 -2- intoxicating powder containing Tramadol Hydrochloride and 20 kgs. poppy husk was effected from him and co-accused Amanpreet Singh, who is his real brother. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case and a false recovery was planted upon him and co-accused. He is in custody for a period of more than two years and two months. There is prolonged pendency of the trial in the present case, and there is no likelihood of its conclusion in the near future, particularly as no prosecution witness has been examined so far. The extended period of his incarceration is a sufficient and new ground to seek concession of bail to him. His involvement in other cases cannot be made a ground to deny him bail in the given circumstances. His continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Status report and custody certificate have been filed by respondent-State. It is argued by learned State counsel that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner as well as the fact that commercial quantity of the contraband was recovered from him, he does not deserve to be released on bail. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 6. The petitioner is alleged to be found in conscious possession of commercial quantity of contraband. He is in custody since 23.06.2024 and has PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.09.07 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43952-2026 -3- spent a period of more than two years and two months in custody. Obviously the trial is likely to take time to conclude. This factor, in the opinion of this Court, is a ground to move for bail afresh. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in a catena of cases that an accused cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period of time, and the bail application can be considered on its own merits even if it is filed repeatedly. It has also been held that every day spent in custody can provide a new cause of action for filing a bail application under certain circumstances. This principle is a part of the broader approach emphasizing that law prefers bail over jail, aiming to balance the rights of the accused with the requirements of the criminal justice system. Prolonged detention itself is a ground for reconsideration of bail since the settled principle of law is that detention prior to trial should not become punitive. It is well settled proposition of law that grant of bail on account of delay in trial and long period of incarceration is to be considered in the light of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, wherein it was held that grant of bail on account of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, given the imperative of Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. which is applicable to offence under the Act. It was also observed that jails are overcrowded and their living conditions are, more often than not, appalling. The danger of unjustified imprisonment is that inmates are more likely to be hardened rather than reformed. Reliance can also be placed upon Manmandal and Another v. State of West Bengal, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.09.07 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43952-2026 -4- No.8656 of 2023 decided on 14.09.2023 and Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 SCC Online SC 110, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had extended benefit of bail to the accused who had been incarcerated for a long period by observing that prolonged incarceration militated against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 7. Reliance can also be placed upon the order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025, wherein it was observed that rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act will not be a bar for considering the case of an accused for bail as it comes with a condition that the prosecution would press for an early completion of trial. In the above- mentioned case the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that appellant who was being prosecuted for being in possession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, was entitled for bail in view of her incarceration for a period of 19 months. 8. Similarly in another case i.e. in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The court expressed the opinion that Section 436A (which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods) of PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.09.07 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43952-2026 -5- the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 would apply. 9. In the case of Ismail Khan @ Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan Criminal Appeal No.4911 of 2025 with regard to recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court accorded the benefit of bail to the accused in view of prolonged incarceration for a period of 02 years and 08 months of the accused. 10. On analyzing the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case in the light of the aforementioned principles of law, it transpires that the petitioner has suffered prolonged incarceration for a period of more than two years and two months, the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as no prosecution witness has been examined so far; the continued detention of the petitioner is not likely to serve any fruitful purpose; there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate in the trial or will abscond. 11. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, and subject to the condition that he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case. He shall appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing except when his presence is exempted by the trial Court. 12. It is clarified that the observations made above shall not be PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.09.07 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43952-2026 -6- construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner. [MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 03rd September, 2026 Parveen Sharma 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.09.07 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document