1 1 CRM-M-17323- -2025 (O&M) 112+232 IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB NJAB v. CRM-M-17323-2025
Case Details
1 1 CRM-M-17323- -2025 (O&M) 112+232 IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB NJAB AND HARYANA AT GARH CHANDIGARH Prahlad Singh Singh @ Dhakar State of Harya Haryana versus CRM-M-17323-2025 (O&M) M) 2025 Date of decision: July 29, 2025 D ioner ….Petitioner dent ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUM SUMEET GOEL Present:- te for Ms. Preety Bansal, Advocate for Mr. Kushager Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryan aryana. SUMEET GO T GOEL, J. (ORAL) ***** 1. Present Second petition has been f the s been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nag a Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (f nt of (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to bail to the petitioner in case bearing
Legal Reasoning
, aring FIR No.67 dated 01.03.2024, registered for d for the offences punishable under cotic under Section 15(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psy nd Psychotropic Substances Act, 198 at ct, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station tation Ellenabad, District Sirsa, Harya Haryana. 2. The gravamen of the FIR in ques an n question is that the petitioner is an accused of bei of being involved in an FIR pertainin 54 ertaining to NDPS Act involving 54 kg of Doda Po a Post. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioner ioner itioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody s tody since 01.03.2024. Learned couns rther counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that d that the mandatory provisions of t been ns of the NDPS Act have not been MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-17323- -2025 (O&M) 2 2 complied with d with, and thus, the prosecution case fects. n case suffers from inherent defects. Learned couns counsel for the petitioner has iterate and iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability th thereof cannot be fastened upon t unsel upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has further ite her iterated that the petitioner has su more suffered incarceration for more than 01 year and 04 months. Thus, regular bail ar bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has opp by s opposed the present petition by arguing that th that the allegations raised against the ature st the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he he does not deserve the concessio rned cession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel h unsel has further submitted that the in y the the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Sect f Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and o be , and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Lea Learned State counsel seeks to plac icate to place on record custody certificate dated 28.07.20 2025 in Court, which is taken on r n on record. 5. I have heard counsel for the rival ough rival parties and have gone through the available re lable records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested after sted on 01.03.2024 whereinafter investigation w ation was carried out and challan was and n was presented on 28.08.2024 and charges were were framed on 28.03.2025. Total have otal 17 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but , but none has been examined till dat aised till date. The rival contentions raised at Bar give ri ive rise to debatable issues shall be the all be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial f trial. This Court does not deem it a into em it appropriate to delve deep into these rival con al contentions, at this stage, lest it m hing st it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has be has been brought forward to indicate ioner dicate the likelihood of the petitioner MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-17323- -2025 (O&M) 3 3 absconding fro ing from the process of justice or in ution or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1. A perusal of the zimni orders pas ught rs passed by the trial Court, brought forth by the p the petitioner, indicates that the tria folly the trial is procrastinating and folly thereof cannot cannot be saddled upon the petitione icate etitioner. As per custody certificate dated 28.07.2 .07.2025 filed by the learned Stat has d State counsel, the petitioner has already suffer suffered incarceration for a period o d 24 riod of 01 year, 04 months and 24 days & is sho is shown to be involved in 01 more f the more case/ FIR. In this view of the matter, the rig the rigor imposed under Section 37 of luted 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted in light of the A of the Article 21 of the Constitution of tion of India. 6.2. This Court in a judgment titled of titled as Kulwinder versus State of Punjab passed assed in CRM-M-64074-2024 (2025 lying (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying upon the ratio ratio decidendi of the judgments of rt in nts of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Kh ara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State 81; State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehma ehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak, (199 ulam , (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v aikh vs. State of Maharashtra and ano inal) another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd M hd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NC 311; te (NCT of Delhi), 2023 INSC 311; Criminal App l Appeal No.245/2020 dated 07.02.2 swas 7.02.2020 titled as “Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas v bhas vs. The State of West Bengal”; “ n Vs. gal”; “Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Vs. The State of te of West Bengal”, Special Leave to 2022 ave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5530-2022 dated 22.08.20 .08.2022 titled as “Mohammad Salm State Salman Hanif Shaikh vs. The State of Gujarat”; C rat”; Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 20 d as of 2022 dated 05.08.2022 titled as Gopal Krishn Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma Vs. nkur Vs. Union of India, and Ankur MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-17323- -2025 (O&M) 4 4 Chaudhary vs. ary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 202 ; has h, 2024(4) RCR (Criminal) 172; has “7.8. The right to a speed only a vital safeguard to pre incarceration; to mitigate anxiet the accusation as well as to c ability of an accused to defen overarching societal interest pavi right has been repeatedly actuat ratio decidendi of the above ju judgments have laid down a serie vistas of fundamental rights. T amalgamated into the Article 2 fu fundamental right to life and libe under our Constitution. The rig the actual restraint imposed at accused and consequent incarce stages, namely, the stage of inves and revision so that any possible to impermissible and avoidable commission of the offence til consummate into a finality, could early hearing and quick disposal jurisprudence. The overcrowde ju volume of work and the resultan indubitably and jurisprudential mechanism under ju this cannot be an excuse for ke hanging on the accused for an ind not serve any credit to the crim makes for a sad state of affairs. T is intended to avoid oppression a on the Court and the prosecution the trial with a reasonable dispa threefold purpose. Firstly, it p oppressive pre-trial imprisonme accused of the anxiety and publi criminal charges and lastly, it evidence will be lost or memori time, thus, impairing the abili himself. It goes without saying trial detention are grave. Accu proven otherwise, are subjected p deprivations of jail-life, usuall peedy and expeditious trial is not not prevent undue and oppressive ive ing nxiety and concern accompanying to curtail any impairment in the the defend himself, but there is an an his paving way for a speedy trial. This the ctuated in the recent past and the ve-referred to Supreme Court’s rt’s ew series of decisions opening up new l is . The concept of speedy trial is le 21 as an essential part of the the ved liberty, guaranteed and preserved ith e right to speedy trial begins with at the time of the arrest of the the all arceration which continues at all eal investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal sible prejudice that may result due ue able delay since the time of the the ngs e till the criminal proceedings ould be averted. The speedy trial, ial, osal are sine qua non of criminal nal avy wded Court-dockets, the heavy ultant pressure on the prosecution ion the entire criminal nal bly keeps er, nder stress and strain. However, r keeping the sword of Damocles les n indefinite period of time. It does oes r it criminal justice system, rather it irs. The guarantee of a speedy trial ial ion and prevent delay by imposing ing ith tion an obligation to proceed with dispatch. The guarantee serves a s a it protects the accused against nst the nment; secondly, it relieves the ved ublic suspicion due to unresolved , it protects against the risk that hat of mories dimmed by the passage of nd ability of the accused to defend ing that the consequences of pre- - till Accused, presumed innocent, till cal ted to psychological and physical ns. ually under onerous conditions. the Police, held thus:- MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-17323- -2025 (O&M) 5 5 Equally important, the burden of frequently falls heavily on the inn fr sed n of detention of such an accused innocent members of his family. There is yet anothe deserves consideration at this s p present case relate to accused bei to commercial quantity of contr 1985. While considering a bai commercial quantity, the Court h enumerated under Section 37 mandates that Courts can grant hearing the public prosecutor and twin conditions which are reas that the accused is not guilty of th that, he is not likely to commit a stringent rigours of Section 37 o meticulously scrutinized agains fu fundamental right to a speedy p personal liberty cannot be rende delays in the judicial process, pa is neither attributable to the accu the prosecution by cogent reasons behind bars for an inordinate per rigours laid down in Section 37 legislature in its wisdom, in orde disposal of the cases under th constitution of special Courts un However, this Court cannot turn delays and systematic inefficienc purpose. A Court of law is duty p in vi not become complicit fundamental rights, notwithstand fu statute. While dealing with bail the rigours of Section 37 of the N strike a judicious balance betwee the menace of drugs and the sacr a fair and expeditious trial. Pro justifiable cause, risks transfor ju punitive imprisonment, an outcom p of justice and equity. ich other aspect of the matter which his stage. The allegations in the the d being involved in an FIR relating ing ct, contraband under the NDPS Act, bail petition in a case involving ing urt has to keep in mind the rigours urs ich 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 which fter rant bail to an accused only after r and after having satisfied itself of f of ing reasonable grounds for believing nd of the offence charged/alleged and it any offence while on bail. The he be 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 must be d’s ainst the backdrop of accused’s edy trial. The right to life and nd ted endered nugatory by unwarranted (s) s, particularly where such delay(s) accused nor justified at the end of of sons. An individual cannot be kept ept in e period of time by taking refuge in 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The he order to ensure speedy and timely ely the r the Act, has provided for the ts under Section 36-A of the Act. ct. turn Nelson’s eye to the protracted ted ive iency that frustrate this legislative duty-bound to ensure that it does oes individual’s l’s violation of an a standing anything contained in a bail petition in a case governed by by he NDPS Act, 1985, the Court must ust urb tween the legislative intent to curb sacrosanct right of the accused to to Prolonged incarceration, without out sforming pre-trial detention into nto ple tcome antithetical to the principle Ergo, the unequivoc trial has failed to conclude withi in prolonged incarceration, it m fundamental rights of life and l fu and, as such, conditional libe the ivocal inference is that where the ithin a reasonable time, resulting ing ous it militates against the precious aw nd liberty granted under the law ory liberty overriding the statutory MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 6 6 CRM-M-17323- -2025 (O&M) embargo created under Section 3 to be considered as per facts of grant of bail in a case pertainin the ground of undue delay in tria by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 19 ght on 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 ought s of a given case. In other words, ds, aining to commercial quantity, on on red trial, cannot be said to be fettered ct, 1985.” Suffice to say, further detenti s an detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is no al is not warranted in the facts and circ nd circumstances of the case. 7. In view of above, the present pe er is ent petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be to be released on regular bail on his f ds to n his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction faction of the Ld. concerned trial Cou ever, ial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to tion to conditions that may be imp trial imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty M uty Magistrate, the petitioner shall re wing hall remain bound by the following conditions:- The petitioner shall not mis (i) (ii) The petitioner shall not tam documentary, during the tri (iii) The petitioner shall not abs ot mis-use the liberty granted. al or ot tamper with any evidence, oral or the trial. efore ot absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not c e on not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposi h the deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give Investigating Officer/SHO and shall not change his ce permission of the trial Cour (vii) The petitioner shall not in the give his cellphone number to the r/SHO of concerned Police Station ation prior his cell-phone number without prior l Court/Illaqa Magistrate. y the not in any manner try to delay the trial. (viii) The petitioner shall submi every month, an affidavi Court, to the effect that commission of any offence In case the petitioner is offence after his being en FIR, on the basis of his affi mandated to move, forthwi y of submit, on the first working day of trial fidavit, before the concerned trial that he has not been involved in d in bail. offence after being released on bail. any er is found to be involved in any ing enlarged on bail in the present esent his affidavit or otherwise, the State is ate is bail orthwith, for cancellation of his bail MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 7 7 CRM-M-17323- -2025 (O&M) which plea, but of course merits thereof. upon course, shall be ratiocinated upon 8. In case of breach of any of the a those f the aforesaid conditions and those which may be ay be imposed by concerned trial Cou ected al Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove ove or upon showing any o ny other sufficient cause, the the State/complain mplainant shall be at liberty to mov f the o move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. 10. Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be on of hall be construed as an expression of opinion on the on the merits of the case. 11. Since the main case has been de eous een decided, pending miscellaneous application, if ion, if any, shall also stands disposed o osed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 2025 July 29, 2025 mahavir Whether speakin peaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportab eportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.30 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment