PUNJAB vs HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS

Judgment

1. The instant one is the second petitio The petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 48 on 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surak Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for gran r grant of regular bail in case aris

e arising out of FIR No.35 dated

18.04.2017 registe registered under Section 22 of Narc Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short “NDPS Act”) at Po strict at Police Station Sudhar, District Ludhiana. The The previous petition as filed by d as d by him had been dismissed as withdrawn vide or ide order dated 29.10.2025.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registe The a at on registered on the allegations that on

18.04.2017, the pe the petitioner and co-accused Jagdish Jagdish Singh were apprehended on the basis of susp f suspicion and recovery of 160 g 160 grams of intoxicating power (diphenoxylate hy ate hydrochloride) was effected from sion. d from their conscious possession. They were formall ormally arrested. Investigation now st now stands concluded. AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.19 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-13243- -2026 (O&M) 2

3. It is argued by learned counsel for t It is a l for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated icated in this case. A false recovery h . He very has been planted upon him. He had been extende xtended benefit of interim bail previo previously. Now he is in custody since 25.10.2024. .2024. The trial will take considerable derable time to conclude. No useful purpose would be uld be served by detaining him in cus in custody anymore. His prolonged incarceration milit n militates against his fundamental rig tal right to speedy trial. With these broad submissions issions, it is urged that he deserves t d the rves to be released on bail and the petition deserves t erves to be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel w Per c nsel while relying upon the status report has submit submitted that this petition is not m not maintainable being the second petition. The rigo e rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Ac , the PS Act are attracted in this case, the recovery being co ing commercial in nature. The trial i trial is proceeding at a proper pace and there is nothin nothing to show that there would be a ld be any undue delay in conclusion of the same. It is It is, therefore, argued that the pe to be the petition does not deserves to be allowed.

5. This Court has heard the rival submis This C ubmissions made by learned counsel for the parties at co es at considerable length.

6. So far as the question of maintain So fa aintainability of this petition being successive one is c ne is concerned, it may be mentioned ht to tioned that, an accused has a right to move successive b ssive bail application for grant of bail ourt, f bail and it is the duty of the Court, while entertaining aining such a subsequent bail applicat pplication, to consider that any fresh ground which per ch persuade it to take a view differe different from the one taken in the earlier application cation is made out or not. It is also r also required to be noted that every AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.19 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-13243- -2026 (O&M) 3 day spent by an a y an accused in custody provides a ne ing a es a new cause of action for filing a bail application un tion under certain circumstances. He y for He cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period a eriod and the bail application can be an be considered even if it is filed repeatedly. The d The denial of bail comes with a cond condition that the prosecution must press for early co arly completion of the trial. The p The petitioner is in custody since

25.10.2024. The The trial will take considerable t y 04 able time to conclude as only 04 prosecution witnes witnesses have been examined so far so far. It is well settled proposition of law that grant grant of bail on account of delay d of delay in trial and long period of incarceration is to n is to be considered in the light of Act. ht of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reliance in this re this regard can be placed upon the o the observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in Mo n Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. Sta CC . State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, 52, wherein it was held that grant of ant of bail on account of undue delay in trial cannot be ot be said to be fettered under Sectio Section 37 of the NDPS Act, given the imperative of S ve of Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. which which is applicable to offence under the Act. It was was also observed that jails are o are overcrowded and their living conditions are, m are, more often than not, appalling tified palling. The danger of unjustified imprisonment is nt is that inmates are more likely likely to be hardened rather than reformed. Relianc eliance can also be placed upon Man Manmandal and Another v. State of West Bengal, S al, Special Leave Petition (Criminal inal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on

14.09.2023 and R nd Rabi Prakash v. State of Odis 33, Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533, wherein the Hon’b Hon’ble Supreme Court had extended ed benefit of bail to the accused who had been in een incarcerated for a long period eriod by observing that prolonged incarceration milit n militated against the most precious ecious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 o le 21 of the Constitution and in such such a situation, the constitutional AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.19 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-13243- -2026 (O&M) 4 principles must ov ust override the statutory embargo c 7 of argo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

7. Reliance can also be placed upon Relia upon Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & h & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.48 o.4883/2025, which is a recently pronounced verdic verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court ob ourt observing that rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act w Act will not be a bar for considering r bail ering the case of an accused for bail as it comes with with a condition that the prosecuti osecution would press for an early completion of tria of trial. In the above-mentioned case d case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that appella ppellant who was being prosecuted n of ecuted for being in possession of commercial quant quantity of narcotic substance, was e f her was entitled for bail in view of her incarceration for a n for a period of 19 months.(cid:1)

8. Similarly in another case i.e. in the c Simil n the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau reau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SC 0 SCC 51 prolonged incarceration and inordinate del te delay engaged the attention of the H f the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which considered the cor he correct approach towards bail, with ents, l, with respect to several enactments, including Section ection 37 NDPS Act. The court expre t expressed the opinion that Section 436A (which requ h requires inter alia the accused to be ial is to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded wit ed within specified periods) of the Cr 1973 the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 would apply.(cid:1)

9. In the case of Ismail Khan @ Pa In th Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan Crminal Appeal eal No.4911 of 2025 with regard regard to recovery of commercial quantity of narcoti narcotic substance, the Hon’ble Supre Supreme Court accorded the benefit AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.19 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-13243- -2026 (O&M) 5 of bail to the accus e accused in view of prolonged incarce incarceration for a period of 02 years and 08 months of t ths of the accused.(cid:1)

10. Similar benefit has been extended Simil LP ended in another appeal i.e. SLP No.15699-2025 tit 25 titled as Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK SK vs. The State of West Bengal and in the case of ase of Pamesh Arora vs. UT Chandig 72 ndigarh Criminal Appeal No.4872 of 2025.(cid:1)

11. On analyzing the peculiar facts and On an ts and circumstances of the present case in the light o light of the aforementioned principle t the nciples of law, it transpires that the petitioner has suf as suffered prolonged incarceration r, 07 ration for a period of 01 year, 07 months and 23 da 23 days. The trial is not likely to b re as ly to be concluded in near future as only 04 out of 1 t of 10 prosecution witnesses have The have been examined so far. The continued detentio etention of the petitioner is not likely pose. likely to serve any fruitful purpose. There is nothing o hing on record to show that if released ll not leased on bail, the petitioner will not participate in the t n the trial or will abscond.

12. In view of the above discussion, this In vie hat a n, this Court is of the opinion that a case is made out f e out for grant of bail to the petitioner , the ioner at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed llowed and the petitioner is ordered to ct to ered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing pers g personal as well as surety bonds to nds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief J hief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistr agistrate concerned.

13. It is, however, clarified that the obse It is, l not e observations made above shall not be construed as an d as an expression of opinion of this C this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influ t influence the outcome of the trial in a ial in any manner. AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.19 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-13243- -2026 (O&M) 6

14. Since the main petition has been all Since n, if allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered in ered infructuous.

19.05.2026 Amit Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes Whether reportable:- Yes/No Yes/No (MANISHA BATRA) (MA JUDGE AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.19 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.