Gagandeep Singh @ Gaggu @ Gagan @ Gagandeep Kumar v. State of Punjab

Mr. Rajeev Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. ... Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

#1. The instant one is the third petition as filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.10, dated

29.01.2024, registered under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station City Morinda, District Rupnagar.

#2. As per the allegations, on 18.08.2024, the petitioner was apprehended on 29.01.2024 by a police party and recovery of 270 grams of intoxicating powder containing Tramadol Hydrochloride was effected from him, which was taken into possession by the police. He was formally arrested. Investigation now stands concluded.

#3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been in custody for a period of about 02 years, 03 months and 25 days. His CRM-M-33751-2026 (O&M) -2- previous petitions had been dismissed on the ground that the trial is at its fag end. However, even after dismissal of his second petition for grant of bail on

20.08.2025, the trial has still not concluded as one witness still remained to be examined. His prolonged incarceration militates against his fundamental right as enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished a new ground to him for seeking benefit of bail. Co-accused Mandeep Singh, whose case is on similar footing has been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the benefit of bail. 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 fact that only 01 prosecution witness remain to be examined and the previous petitions as filed by the petitioner have been dismissed, he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail.

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

#6. The petitioner has suffered incarceration for a period of 02 years, 03 months and 25 days as on 05.07.2026. Even after dismissal of his previous petitions about 11 months back, wherein it was observed that trial was at fag end, it has not been concluded so far since 01 witness still remain to be examined. It is well settled proposition of law that speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and 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 CRM-M-33751-2026 (O&M) -3- observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain Vs. 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. Reliance can also be placed upon Manmandal & 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 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 CRM-M-33751-2026 (O&M) -4- narcotic substance, was entitled for bail in view of her incarceration for a period of 19 months.

#8. 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.

#9. In the case of Ismail Khan @ Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan 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.

#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 for a period of about 02 years, 03 months and 25, 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 CRM-M-33751-2026 (O&M) -5- 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. Keeping in view the above discussed facts as also on the ground of parity, 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 extent of two sureties in the like amount each, 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 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.

#14. Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.

09.07.2026 harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE