Judgment · High Court · 2026

y learned counsel for the petitioner that this has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that this y learned counsel for the petitioner that this moved by the petitioner and that from the date of is the third bail application moved by the petitioner and that from the date of moved by the petitioner and that from the date of is the third bail application as the similarly dismissal of second bail petition there is change in circumstance, as the similarly dismissal of second bail petition there is change in circumstance dismissal of second bail petition there is change in circumstance accused Arshdeep Singh @Arashdeep Singh @Arash has been accused Arshdeep Singh @Arashdeep S placed co-accused Arshdeep Singh @Arashdeep S ordinate Bench of this Court on 17.03.2026. accorded the benefit of bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 17.03.2026. ordinate Bench of this Court on 17.03.2026. accorded the benefit of bail by Co According to learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner has no criminal According to learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner has no criminal According to learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner has no criminal According to learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner has no criminal is entitled to bail. antecedents and on the ground of parity also, he is entitled to bail. antecedents and on the ground of parity

learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned The of contraband arguments. According to learned State Counsel, the quantity of contraband arguments. According to learned State Counsel, the arguments. According to learned State Counsel, the comes within the ambit of commercial quantity recovered in the instant case, comes within the ambit of commercial quantity comes within the ambit of commercial quantity recovered in the instant case, and therefore, without satisfying the rigors o f Section 37 of NDPS Act, the without satisfying the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act, the f Section 37 of NDPS Act, the benefit of bail sho uld not be accorded to the present petitioner. should not be accorded to the present petitioner.

The record has been perused carefully. The record has been perused carefully. The record has been perused carefully. As far as the principles governing the benefit of bail in a case As far as the principles governing the benefit of bail in a case As far as the principles governing the benefit of bail in a case As far as the principles governing the benefit of bail in a case contraband comes within the ambit related to NDPS Act, wherein the quantity of contraband comes within the ambit contraband comes within the ambit related to NDPS Act, are concerned, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble of commercial quantity, are concerned, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble are concerned, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble of commercial quantity, ’ ‘Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State’ Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State Supreme Court (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352 are relevant. In the abovementio (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352 are relevant. In the abovementioned case the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that grant of bail on account the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that grant of bail on account has held that grant of bail on account 37 of the of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered under Section-37 of the of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered under Section of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered under Section A which is applicable to NDPS Act, given the imperative of Section 436-A which is applicable to NDPS Act, given the imperative of Section 436 NDPS Act, given the imperative of Section 436 offences under the Act. offences under the Act.

In this regard it is also relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble In this regard it is also relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble In this regard it is also relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble In this regard it is also relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble Manmandal and Another v. State of West Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Manmandal and Another v. State of West Manmandal and Another v. State of West Supreme Court of India in the case of , Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on Bengal’, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on , Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on , Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on

14.09.2023 and ‘ ‘Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha , State of Odisha’, 2023 SCC Online SC 1109, extended the benefit of bail to the accused, who had been incarcerated for a extended the benefit of bail to the accused, who had been incarcerated for a extended the benefit of bail to the accused, who had been incarcerated for a extended the benefit of bail to the accused, who had been incarcerated for a 3 years and the trial was likely to take considerable time. The period of almost 2-3 years and the trial was likely to take considerable time. The 3 years and the trial was likely to take considerable time. The period of almost 2 mentioned benefit has been given by observing above-mentioned benefit has been given by observing mentioned benefit has been given by observing hat prolonged that prolonged t t incarceration generally militates against the most precious fundamental right incarceration generally militates against the most precious fundamental right incarceration generally militates against the most precious fundamental right incarceration generally militates against the most precious fundamental right 21 of the Constitution, and in such a situation, the guaranteed under Article-21 of the Constitution, and in such a situation, the 21 of the Constitution, and in such a situation, the guaranteed under Article constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo contained under constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo contained under constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo contained under constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo contained under 37 of the NDPS Act. Section-37 of the NDPS Act.

In addition to above, in a recently pronounced verdict in the case of In addition to above, in a recently pronounced verdict in the case of In addition to above, in a recently pronounced verdict in the case of In addition to above, in a recently pronounced verdict in the case of Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr.’ Criminal Appeal ‘Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr.’ Criminal Appeal Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr.’ Criminal Appeal Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr.’ Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that rigo rs of of India observed that rigors of t will not be a bar for considering the case of an accused Section 37 of NDPS Act will not be a bar for considering the case of an accused t will not be a bar for considering the case of an accused Section 37 of NDPS Ac for bail as it comes with a condition that the prosecution would press for an for bail as it comes with a condition that the prosecution would press for an for bail as it comes with a condition that the prosecution would press for an for bail as it comes with a condition that the prosecution would press for an mentioned case the Hon’ble Supreme early completion of trial. In the above-mentioned case the Hon’ble Supreme mentioned case the Hon’ble Supreme early completion of trial. In the above eing prosecuted for being in Court of India held that appellant who was being prosecuted for being in Court of India held that appellant who was b Court of India held that appellant who was b possession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, was entitled for bail in possession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, was entitled for bail in possession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, was entitled for bail in possession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, was entitled for bail in view of her incarceration for a period of 19 months. view of her incarceration for a period of 19 months. view of her incarceration for a period of 19 months.

Satender Kumar Antil Similarly in another case i.e. in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Similarly in another case i.e. in the case of Similarly in another case i.e. in the case of v. Central Bureau of Investigation’ (2022) 10 SCC 51 v. Central Bureau o prolonged incarceration (2022) 10 SCC 51 prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to India, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to India, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to India, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to Hon’ble Supreme several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The Hon’ble Supreme several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Ac several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Ac Court of India expressed the opinion that Section 436A of the Criminal expressed the opinion that Section 436A of the Criminal expressed the opinion that Section 436A of the Criminal which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on Procedure Code, 1973 [which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on Procedure Code, 1973 in such bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods] would apply in such bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods cases.

’ Ismail Khan @ Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan’ In the case of ‘Ismail Khan @ Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan In the case of with regard to recovery of commercial Criminal Appeal No.4911 of 2025 with regard to recovery of commercial with regard to recovery of commercial Criminal Appeal No.4911 of 2025 quantity of narcotic substance the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India accorded the quantity of narcotic substance the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India accorded the quantity of narcotic substance the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India accorded the quantity of narcotic substance the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India accorded the w of prolonged incarceration for a period of benefit of bail to the accused in view of prolonged incarceration for a period of w of prolonged incarceration for a period of benefit of bail to the accused in vie 02 years and 08 months of the accused. 02 years and 08 months of the accused.

The similar benefit has been given The similar benefit has been SLP given in another appeal, i.e. SLP No.15699-2025 titled as 2025 titled as ‘Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK vs. The State of West Bengal ’, Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK vs. The State of West Bengal’, and in the case of ‘Pamesh Arora vs. UT Chandigarh and in the case of Criminal Appeal No.4872 Arora vs. UT Chandigarh’ Criminal Appeal No.4872 of 2025.

In the case of ‘Hasanujjaman & Ors. V/s The State of West Bengal’ In the case of ‘Hasanujjaman & Ors. V/s The State of West Bengal’ In the case of ‘Hasanujjaman & Ors. V/s The State of West Bengal’ In the case of ‘Hasanujjaman & Ors. V/s The State of West Bengal’ SLP (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023, the benefit of bail has been accorded by the SLP (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023, the benefit of bail has been accorded by the SLP (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023, the benefit of bail has been accorded by the SLP (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023, the benefit of bail has been accorded by the found in the possession Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to an accused, who was found in the possession Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to an accused, who was Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to an accused, who was of 115 bottles of phensedyl, by observing that:- of 115 bottles of phensedyl, by observing that: the petitioner was in custody for a period of one year and three a) the petitioner was in custody for a period of one year and three the petitioner was in custody for a period of one year and three the petitioner was in custody for a period of one year and three months; months; sheet had the investigation in that case was complete and charge-sheet had the investigation in that case was complete and charge b) the investigation in that case was complete and charge be framed; been filed, but charges were yet to be framed; been filed, but charges were yet to the conclusion of trial would take some time; and c) the conclusion of trial would take some time; and the conclusion of trial would take some time; and the petitioner had no criminal antecedents. d) the petitioner had no criminal antecedents. the petitioner had no criminal antecedents. In view of abovementioned prevailing factors, it has been observed In view of abovementioned prevailing factors, it has been observed In view of abovementioned prevailing factors, it has been observed In view of abovementioned prevailing factors, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that there is substantial compliance of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that there is substantial compliance by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that there is substantial compliance 37 of NDPS Act. Section-37 of NDPS Act.

Similarly, in the case of ‘Nandlal Mondal @Abhay Mondal V/s Similarly, in the case of ‘Nandlal Mondal @Abhay Mondal V/s Similarly, in the case of ‘Nandlal Mondal @Abhay Mondal V/s Similarly, in the case of ‘Nandlal Mondal @Abhay Mondal V/s The State of West Bengal’ SLP(Crl) No.12788/2023, the Hon’ble Supreme The State of West Bengal’ SLP(Crl) No.12788/2023, the Hon’ble Supreme The State of West Bengal’ SLP(Crl) No.12788/2023, the Hon’ble Supreme The State of West Bengal’ SLP(Crl) No.12788/2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India afforded the benefit of bail to the accused, who was found in Court of India afforded the benefit of bail to the accused, who was found in Court of India afforded the benefit of bail to the accused, who was found in Court of India afforded the benefit of bail to the accused, who was found in ,000 ml of codeine phosphate, and was in custody for a period possession of 10,000 ml of codeine phosphate, and was in custody for a period ,000 ml of codeine phosphate, and was in custody for a period possession of 10 of one and a half year, by considering that conclusion of trial would take long of one and a half year, by considering that conclusion of trial would take long of one and a half year, by considering that conclusion of trial would take long of one and a half year, by considering that conclusion of trial would take long time.

If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed in If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed in If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed in If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed in the light of above-mentioned principles of law, it transpires that: the light of above ples of law, it transpires that:- Arshdeep Singh @Arashdeep Singh @Arash, whose Arshdeep Singh @Arashdeep Singh @Arash first bail petition was dismissed; iii) that the that the petitioner has already served a prolonged incarceration petitioner has already served a prolonged incarceration for a period of more than one year eleven in this case, i.e. for a period of more than one year eleven for a period of more than one year eleven in this case months and fourteen days; months and fourteen days; that the petitioner has clean antecedents; iv) that the petitioner has clean antecedents; that the petitioner has clean antecedents;

In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh of India in the case of “Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh are relevant, wherein it has been and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are relevant, wherein it has been are relevant, wherein it has been and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the observed that “ presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.

The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation India in the case of ‘ are also relevant in this case. In the and Another’, (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case. In the are also relevant in this case. In the and Another’, ( the rate of conviction in ementioned case, it has been observed that “the rate of conviction in ementioned case, it has been observed that “ abovementioned case, it has been observed that “ criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs criminal cases in India is abysmally low.

Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Recently, in the case of ‘ Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Cou Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322 rt of India , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six has observed that “if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six has observed that

to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said n has been that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitutio that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitutio infringed

.

o elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and o elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and o elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and ental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair ental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair ental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in “ inder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 “Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 inder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354. SCC Online SC 4354

If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the or the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves or the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves petitioner is entitled f to be allowed.