Pappu Singh @ Pappi v. State of Haryana

Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, Haryana. ... Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

#1. The instant one is the second petition as filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 183 dated 15.06.2024 registered under Sections 15-C and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Mundkati, District Palwal. His previous petition bearing CRM-M-57412-2025 had been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.02.2026.

#2. As per the allegations, on 15.06.2024, on the basis of a secret information, the accused Gursharan Singh was apprehended and 593 kgs and 500 grams of poppy husk was recovered from his conscious possession. He was formally arrested. The driver of the vehicle i.e. the present petitioner CRM-M-33622-2026 (O&M) -2- had managed to abscond. The petitioner was subsequently arrested on

30.08.2024. 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. He is in custody since 30.08.2024. There are no chances of conclusion of trial in near future as only 02 witnesses out of 31 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and that too partly. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

#4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner and the fact that the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are attracted in this case, he does not deserve to be released on bail. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. However, this being the successive petition is not even maintainable. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

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

#6. So far as the question of maintainability of the 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 CRM-M-33622-2026 (O&M) -3- can be made to Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 11 SCC 458, wherein it was so observed.

#7. In the instant case, contraband of commercial quantity was allegedly recovered from the petitioner and co-accused. However, he has remained in custody for a period over 01 year, 10 months and 07 days. Only 02 out of 31 witnesses that too partly have been examined by prosecution in this case, obviously, chances of trial in near future are bleak. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in a catena of cases that an accused cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period of time. Prolonged detention itself is a ground for reconsideration of bail since the settled principle of law is that detention prior to trial should not become punitive. It is true that grant of bail on account of delay in trial and long period of incarceration is to be considered in light of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the observations made by the 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 436A which is applicable to offences under the Act. It was also observed that the 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 SCC OnLine SC 110, wherein bail was granted to the accused, who had CRM-M-33622-2026 (O&M) -4- been incarcerated for a period of almost two to three years and the trial was likely to take considerable time, by observing that prolonged incarceration generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, and in such a situation, the constitutional principle must override the statutory embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

#8. Reliance can further be placed upon judgment dated 14.11.2025 passed in Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & another passed in Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has 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.

#9. Similarly 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.

#10. In the case of Ismail Khan @ Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan CRM-M-33622-2026 (O&M) -5- passed in Criminal 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.

#11. 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.

#12. 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 for a period of about 01 year, 10 months and 07 days, the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; 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.

#13. 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 on his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, and subject to the condition that he shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 CRM-M-33622-2026 (O&M) -6- 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.

#14. 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.

#15. Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.

07.07.2026 harjeet (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : Yes/No Yes/No