Gurmukh Singh v. State of Punjab

Mr. Roshandeep Singh, 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 the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.12 dated

15.03.2023 registered under Sections 21 and 25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) and Sections 379 and 411 of IPC at Police Station Thulliwal, District Barnala. His previous petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.05.2025.

#2. As per the allegations, on 15.03.2023, on receipt of a secret information to the effect that the petitioner along with the co-accused Jaspal Singh, Rinku, Raghu Kabadia and Ravi Kabadia had formed a gang which was involved in the business of sale of narcotics and committing CRM-M-33658-2026 (O&M) -2- thefts and further that they along with narcotics, could be apprehended near the area of amla wala drain, a raiding party was formed which reached at the informed place and found three persons while checking a transparent polythene bag placed on the bonnet of the car. On noticing the police officials, they tried to flee but were apprehended. On asking, they disclosed their names and particulars one of whom was the present petitioner. On conducting search, 290 grams of heroin was recovered from the polythene which the petitioner and co-accused were carrying. The recovered contraband was taken into custody. The petitioner and co-accused were formally arrested. On interrogation, the petitioner and co-accused suffered disclosure statements and in pursuance thereof got recovered 20 litres of stolen transformer oil. Investigation now stands completed.

#3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. False recoveries have been planted upon him. He is in custody for a period of over three 03 years and 03 months and 20 days. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. The trial will take time to conclude. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished a new ground to him to seek bail afresh. Co-accused Jaspal Singh has already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court. On parity, he too deserves to be given the same benefit. It is, therefore, argued that the petition is maintainable and he deserves to be released on bail.

#4. Custody certificate of the petitioner has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that the petition is not maintainable as it is a successive petition. There is no drastic change in the circumstances. The petitioner is a habitual offender. The allegations against CRM-M-33658-2026 (O&M) -3- him are serious in nature. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

#6. This Court has considered the rival submissions. The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have been found in conscious possession of commercial quantity of contraband and recovery of stolen transformer oil has also been effected from him and the co-accused. So far as the question of maintainability of this petition being second petition is concerned, it may be mentioned that an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, and it is the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a subsequent bail application, to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail petition was rejected. The fresh grounds which persuade the Court to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application are also required to be recorded. Reference in this regard can be made to Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 11 SCC 458, wherein it was so observed. 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. CRM-M-33658-2026 (O&M) -4- 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 Live Law (SC) 533, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme 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 the order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025, wherein it observed 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 abovementioned 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 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 CRM-M-33658-2026 (O&M) -5- the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 would apply.

#9. In the case of Ismail Khan @ Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan Crminal Appeal No.4911 of 2025 with regard to recovery of commercial 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. The 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; similarly situated co-accused has already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court; 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. As such, the prolonged detention of the petitioner amounts to drastic change in circumstances extending fresh ground to petitioner to seek bail.

#12. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned, and subject to the condition that he shall not directly or indirectly make any CRM-M-33658-2026 (O&M) -6- inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case. He shall appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing except when his presence has been exempted by the trial Court. He shall surrender his passport, if any, furnish details of his cell phone and Aadhaar card, and shall not change his mobile number(s) during the pendency of the trial.

#13. It is 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.

06.07.2026 Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No