Palwinder Singh @ Billa v. State of Punjab

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

#1. The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.10 dated 07.02.2024 registered under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS”) at Police Station Rajpura, District Patiala. His previous petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 02.09.2025 with liberty to file afresh after completing custody period of two years.

#2. As per the allegations, on 07.02.2024, a bus was stopped by the Police officials for checking purpose. Two persons alighted from the same. Both of them were carrying a brown colour bag. On noticing the Police officials, they started walking with fast paces. They were apprehended on the basis of suspicion. The petitioner was one of them. The person CRM-M-13167-2026 (O&M) 2 accompanying him disclosed his name as Kulwinder Singh @ Kiddi. On conducting search of the bag, 54,000 intoxicating tablets marked with label of Lomotil were found kept in the bag carried by the co-accused, which were taken into possession. The bag of the petitioner was also searched and recovery of 51000 tablets Lomotil was effected from the same. Since they could not produce any valid license or permit to keep in their possession the recovered drugs, they were formally arrested at the spot. Investigation now stands completed.

#3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery has been planted upon him. The mandatory provisions of the NDPS had not been complied with at the time of effecting the alleged recovery. He is in custody since long. There are no chances of conclusion of trial in the near future. His previous petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh after completing custody period of two years. However, he has now undergone custody for a period of more than two years and five months. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. His antecedents are clean. Co-accused Kulwinder Singh @ Kiddi has already been granted concession of bail by this Court. On parity, the petitioner too deserves to be given the same benefit. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be released on bail.

#4. Status report and custody certificate have been filed. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations coupled with the fact that the ingredients of Section 37 of NDPS Act are CRM-M-13167-2026 (O&M) 3 attracted in this case, the petitioner does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail.

#5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties at considerable length.

#6. The petitioner is alleged to have been found in conscious possession of the contraband. Though the allegations make out a prima facie case against the petitioner for the alleged offence, however, it is significant to note that he has been in custody for a period of 02 years, 05 months and 03 days. He has clean antecedents. Trial will obviously take time to conclude as only 03 witnesses have been examined so far. 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) No.8656 of 2023 decided on 14.09.2023 and Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme CRM-M-13167-2026 (O&M) 4 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 Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025, which is a recently pronounced verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court observing that rigors 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 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 CRM-M-13167-2026 (O&M) 5 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. Similar benefit has been extended in another appeal i.e. SLP No.15699-2025 titled as Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK vs. The State of West Bengal and in the case of Pamesh Arora vs. UT Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.4872 of 2025.

#11. 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. The trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as only 03 prosecution witnesses out of total 12 have been examined so far. Co-accused has already been given concession of bail. 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.

#12. 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 subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

#13. In the event of there being any FIR/complaint lodged against the petitioner, it shall be open to the respondent-State to seek redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail. CRM-M-13167-2026 (O&M) 6

#14. It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be 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.

16.07.2026 Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No