Jk No. 22 of 6288 · Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2026

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Present: Present: Present: Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner for the petitioner. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Additional AG Punjab. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Additional AG Punjab. , J. (ORAL) SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL ***** ***** ***** ***** Present petition has been filed under Section / under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023/ 439 Cr. P.C. seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.97 dated 17.08.2018

17.08.2018, registered for the offences punishable under Section 22, ences punishable under Sections 22, Sadar Kapurthala, District NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station Sadar Kapurthala, District NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station Kapurthala.

accused, namely, The gravamen of the FIR in question is that co-accused, namely, The gravamen of the FIR in question is that Nazir Ahmed and Mohammad Aslam were travelling in a Swift car bearing Nazir Ahmed and Mohammad Aslam were travelling in a Swift car bearing Nazir Ahmed and Mohammad Aslam were travelling in a Swift car bearing Nazir Ahmed and Mohammad Aslam were travelling in a Swift car bearing 6288 when they were intercepted on the basis of secret registration No.JK-22-6288 when they were intercepted on the basis of secret 6288 when they were intercepted on the basis of secret registration No.JK nformation. Upon search, a bag kept on the lap of Nazir Ahmed was checked, information. Upon search, a bag kept on the lap of Nazir Ahmed was checked, nformation. Upon search, a bag kept on the lap of Nazir Ahmed was checked, nformation. Upon search, a bag kept on the lap of Nazir Ahmed was checked, which led to the recovery of 260 grams of Alprazolam along with ₹7,89,600/- in which led to the recovery of 260 grams of Alprazolam along with which led to the recovery of 260 grams of Alprazolam along with During the course of investigation, it was disclosed that they had come to cash. During the course of investigation, it was disclosed that they had come to During the course of investigation, it was disclosed that they had come to During the course of investigation, it was disclosed that they had come to deliver the contraband substance to Baljinder Singh, Kuldeep Singh deliver the contraban (petitioner d substance to Baljinder Singh, Kuldeep Singh (petitioner , and Manjit Kaur. herein), and Manjit Kaur. 2026 19049----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----19049 20262026 19049 19049 2222

Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 05.07.2019. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 03 years. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 16.04.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record.

I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

The petitioner was arrested on 05.07.2019, whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan qua the petitioner was presented on

18.11.2019. Total 15 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which, 09 have been examined till date. It is, thus, indubitable that conclusion of the trial will take long time. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 2026 19049----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----19049 20262026 19049 19049 3333

6.1. The trial is indeed procrastinating and folly thereof cannot be saddled upon the petitioner. As per custody certificate dated 16.04.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 03 years, 01 month and 14 days.

6.2. Further, as per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in other FIR(s). However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Maulana Maulana Maulana U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Sridhar Sridhar Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryanaaryanaaryanaaryana, decided on No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of H Akhilesh Singh v. State of H Akhilesh Singh v. State of H Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted in light of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6.3. This Court in a judgment titled as Kulwinder versus State of Punjab Kulwinder versus State of Punjab Kulwinder versus State of Punjab Kulwinder versus State of Punjab passed in CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----64074640746407464074----2024202420242024 (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying upon the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2023 INSC 311; Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 dated

07.02.2020 titled as “Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas vs. The State of West Bengal”; “Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan vs. The State of West Bengal”, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5530-2022 dated 22.08.2022 titled as “Mohammad Salman 2026 19049----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----19049 20262026 19049 19049 4444 Hanif Shaikh vs. The State of Gujarat”; Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated

05.08.2022 titled as Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma vs. Union of India, and Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024(4) RCR (Criminal) 172; has held, thus: ““““7.8. The right to a speedy and expeditious trial is not only a vital safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration; to mitigate anxiety and concern accompanying the accusation as well as to curtail any impairment in the ability of an accused to defend himself, but there is an overarching societal interest paving way for a speedy trial. This right has been repeatedly actuated in the recent past and the ratio decidendi of the above-referred to Supreme Court’s judgments have laid down a series of decisions opening up new vistas of fundamental rights. The concept of speedy trial is amalgamated into the Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty, guaranteed and preserved under our Constitution.

The right to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint imposed at the time of the arrest of the accused and consequent incarceration which continues at all stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible prejudice that may result due to impermissible and avoidable delay since the time of the commission of the offence till the criminal proceedings consummate into a finality, could be averted. The speedy trial, early hearing and quick disposal are sine qua non of criminal jurisprudence. The overcrowded Court-dockets, the heavy volume of work and the resultant pressure on the prosecution and the Police, indubitably keeps the entire criminal jurisprudential mechanism under stress and strain. However, this cannot be an excuse for keeping the sword of Damocles hanging on the accused for an indefinite period of time. It does not serve any credit to the criminal justice system, rather it makes for a sad state of affairs.

The guarantee of a speedy trial is intended to avoid oppression and prevent delay by imposing on the Court and the prosecution an obligation to proceed with the trial with a reasonable dispatch. The guarantee serves a threefold purpose. Firstly, it protects the accused against oppressive pre- trial imprisonment; secondly, it relieves the accused of the anxiety and public suspicion due to unresolved criminal charges and lastly, it protects against the risk that evidence will be lost or memories dimmed by the passage of time, thus, impairing the ability of the accused to defend himself. It goes without saying that the consequences of pre-trial detention are grave. Accused, presumed innocent, till proven otherwise, are subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of jail-life, usually under onerous conditions. Equally important, the burden of detention of such an accused frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his family.

There is yet another aspect of the matter which deserves consideration at this stage. The allegations in the present case relate to accused being involved in an FIR relating to commercial quantity of contraband under the NDPS Act, 1985. While considering a bail petition in a case involving commercial quantity, the Court has to keep in mind the rigours enumerated under Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 which mandates that Courts can grant bail to an accused only after hearing the public prosecutor and after having satisfied itself of twin conditions which are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged/alleged and that, he is not likely to commit any offence 2026 19049----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----19049 20262026 19049 19049 5555 while on bail. The stringent rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 must be meticulously scrutinized against the backdrop of accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial.

The right to life and personal liberty cannot be rendered nugatory by unwarranted delays in the judicial process, particularly where such delay(s) is neither attributable to the accused nor justified at the end of the prosecution by cogent reasons. An individual cannot be kept behind bars for an inordinate period of time by taking refuge in rigours laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The legislature in its wisdom, in order to ensure speedy and timely disposal of the cases under the Act, has provided for the constitution of special Courts under Section 36-A of the Act. However, this Court cannot turn Nelson’s eye to the protracted delays and systematic inefficiency that frustrate this legislative purpose. A Court of law is duty-bound to ensure that it does not become complicit in violation of an individual’s fundamental rights, notwithstanding anything contained in a statute. While dealing with bail petition in a case governed by the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, the Court must strike a judicious balance between the legislative intent to curb the menace of drugs and the sacrosanct right of the accused to a fair and expeditious trial.

Prolonged incarceration, without justifiable cause, risks transforming pre-trial detention into punitive imprisonment, an outcome antithetical to the principle of justice and equity. Ergo, the unequivocal inference is that where the trial has failed to conclude within a reasonable time, resulting in prolonged incarceration, it militates against the precious fundamental rights of life and liberty granted under the law and, as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 ought to be considered as per facts of a given case. In other words, grant of bail in a case pertaining to commercial quantity, on the ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985.”””” Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. SUMEET GOEL)))) ((((SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE , 2026 April 17, 2026 April 17 , 2026 , 2026 April 17 April 17 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No