1 1 CRM-M-36359- -2025 (O&M) 233 IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB NJAB v. CRM-M-36359-2025
Case Details
1 1 CRM-M-36359- -2025 (O&M) 233 IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB NJAB AND HARYANA AT GARH CHANDIGARH Harjinder Kum r Kumar @ Pandit Punjab State of Punjab versus CRM-M-36359-2025 (O&M) M) 2025 Date of decision: July 31, 2025 D ioner ….Petitioner dent ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUM SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Manjinder Singh Saini, Advo Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG Pun G Punjab. SUMEET GO T GOEL, J. (ORAL) ***** 1. Present petition has been filed the 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
Facts
, aring FIR No.26 dated 05.02.2024, registered for d for the offences punishable under S cotic nder Sections 22/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psy nd Psychotropic Substances Act, 198 at ct, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station tation Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpu shiarpur, Punjab. 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 51 ertaining to NDPS Act involving 51 loose intoxica toxicant injections, 68 grams intoxic drug intoxicant powder along with drug money of Rs.4 f Rs.4,000/-. 3.
Legal Reasoning
) 477 & judgments of this Court in CR ed as t in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Sing Singh v. State of Haryana, decide j v. ecided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Harya aryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191 l) 191. MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.31 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 6 6 CRM-M-36359- -2025 (O&M) 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 which plea, but of course merits thereof. y of submit, on the first working day of fidavit, before the concerned trial trial that he has not been involved in d in bail. offence after being released on bail. er is found to be involved in any any ing enlarged on bail in the present esent ate is his affidavit or otherwise, the State is bail orthwith, for cancellation of his bail 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.31 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 7 7 CRM-M-36359- -2025 (O&M) 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 31, 2025 mahavir Whether speakin peaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportab eportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.31 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment
Arguments
Learned counsel for the petitioner ioner itioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody s tody since 05.02.2024. Learned couns rther counsel for the petitioner has further MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.31 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-36359- -2025 (O&M) 2 2 submitted that d that the mandatory provisions of t been ns of the NDPS Act have not been 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. T d for. . Thus, regular 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 unsel seeks to place on record custod 2025 custody certificate dated 30.07.2025 in Court, whic , which is taken 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 05.02.2024 whereinafter investigation w ation was carried out and challan was p Total was presented on 01.07.2024. Total 12 prosecution ecution witnesses have been cited, bu d till , but none has been examined till date. The rival e rival contentions raised at Bar give r ll be give rise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated up d upon during the course of trial. m it trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to iate to delve deep into these rival co est it val contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice ejudice the trial. Nothing tangible h d to ible has been brought forward to indicate the li the likelihood of the petitioner ab ss of er absconding from the process of justice or inter r interfering with the prosecution evid n evidence. MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.31 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 3 3 CRM-M-36359- -2025 (O&M) 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 trial and e trial is indeed procrastinating and folly thereof ereof cannot be saddled upon the tody n the petitioner. As per custody certificate date te dated 30.07.2025 filed by the learne ioner learned State counsel, the petitioner has already su ady suffered incarceration for a period d 22 period of 01 year, 05 months and 22 days. 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 of bdul ate of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman Antu Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 S Nabi 2) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. Sta vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 494; other, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd Muslim uslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of NSC T of Delhi) reported as 2023 INSC 311; Criminal riminal Appeal No.245/2020 dated hitta dated 07.02.2020 titled as “Chitta Biswas Alias Alias Subhas vs. The State of West y @ West Bengal”; “Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan vs. Th vs. The State of West Bengal”, Spe Crl.) l”, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5530-2022 2022 dated 22.08.2022 titled as “Mo aikh s “Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh vs. The State ate of Gujarat”; Criminal App ated Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated 05.08.2022 titl 22 titled as Gopal Krishna Patra @ G ndia, a @ Gopalrusma vs. Union of India, and Ankur C kur Chaudhary vs. State of Mad RCR Madhya Pradesh, 2024(4) RCR (Criminal) 172 al) 172; has held, thus: “7.8. The right to a speedy vital safeguard to prevent undue and o anxiety and concern accompanying th any impairment in the ability of an acc an overarching societal interest pavin edy and expeditious trial is not only a y a nd oppressive incarceration; to mitigate ate tail ng the accusation as well as to curtail n accused to defend himself, but there is e is ght aving way for a speedy trial. This right MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.31 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-36359- -2025 (O&M) 4 4 has been repeatedly actuated in the re the above-referred to Supreme Court’s of decisions opening up new vistas of speedy trial is amalgamated into the A fundamental right to life and liberty, g fu Constitution. The right to speedy tri imposed at the time of the arrest incarceration which continues at a investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal a p prejudice that may result due to imper the time of the commission of the of consummate into a finality, could be hearing and quick disposal are sine The overcrowded Court-dockets, the resultant pressure on the prosecution a entire criminal jurisprudential mec However, this cannot be an excuse f hanging on the accused for an indefin any credit to the criminal justice syste affairs. The guarantee of a speedy tr and prevent delay by imposing on t obligation to proceed with the trial guarantee serves a threefold purpos against oppressive pre-trial impriso accused of the anxiety and public su charges and lastly, it protects against memories dimmed by the passage of tim accused to defend himself. It goes with p pre-trial detention are grave. Accuse otherwise, are subjected to psycholo jail-life, usually under onerous conditi ja of detention of such an accused frequ members of his family. i of e recent past and the ratio decidendi of ies urt’s judgments have laid down a series s of fundamental rights. The concept of t of the Article 21 as an essential part of the the our ty, guaranteed and preserved under our y trial begins with the actual restraint int rest of the accused and consequent ent of at all stages, namely, the stage of ble eal and revision so that any possible mpermissible and avoidable delay since nce e offence till the criminal proceedings ngs rly d be averted. The speedy trial, early ine qua non of criminal jurisprudence. ce. the heavy volume of work and the the ion and the Police, indubitably keeps the the in. mechanism under stress and strain. se for keeping the sword of Damocles les efinite period of time. It does not serve rve of ystem, rather it makes for a sad state of ion y trial is intended to avoid oppression on the Court and the prosecution an an rial with a reasonable dispatch. The he sed rpose. Firstly, it protects the accused prisonment; secondly, it relieves the the c suspicion due to unresolved criminal nal inst the risk that evidence will be lost or or the of time, thus, impairing the ability of the without saying that the consequences of of cused, presumed innocent, till proven ven of hological and physical deprivations of en nditions. Equally important, the burden ent frequently falls heavily on the innocent There is yet another as consideration at this stage. The alleg accused being involved in an FIR r contraband under the NDPS Act, 1985 in a case involving commercial quantit rigours enumerated under Section 37 that Courts can grant bail to an acc p prosecutor and after having satisfied reasonable grounds for believing tha offence charged/alleged and that, he while on bail. The stringent rigours o must be meticulously scrutinized ag fu fundamental right to a speedy trial. T cannot be rendered nugatory by un process, particularly where such del p accused nor justified at the end of the individual cannot be kept behind bars taking refuge in rigours laid down in The legislature in its wisdom, in or disposal of the cases under the Act, h er aspect of the matter which deserves ves llegations in the present case relate to to of IR relating to commercial quantity of ion 1985. While considering a bail petition antity, the Court has to keep in mind the the 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 which mandates tes lic accused only after hearing the public fied itself of twin conditions which are are that the accused is not guilty of the the , he is not likely to commit any offence nce 85 rs of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 d against the backdrop of accused’s d’s l. The right to life and personal liberty rty ial y unwarranted delays in the judicial the delay(s) is neither attributable to the f the prosecution by cogent reasons. An An bars for an inordinate period of time by by 85. n in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. n order to ensure speedy and timely ely of ct, has provided for the constitution of MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.31 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 5 5 CRM-M-36359- -2025 (O&M) special Courts under Section 36-A of t turn Nelson’s eye to the protracted del fr frustrate this legislative purpose. A C that it does not become complicit fundamental rights, notwithstanding fu While dealing with bail petition in a Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, balance between the legislative intent t sacrosanct right of the accused to a fa incarceration, without justifiable ca detention into punitive imprisonmen principle of justice and equity. p not of the Act. However, this Court cannot hat d delays and systematic inefficiency that A Court of law is duty-bound to ensure ure licit in violation of an individual’s l’s te. ing anything contained in a statute. in a case governed by the rigours of of 85, the Court must strike a judicious s the tent to curb the menace of drugs and the ed a fair and expeditious trial. Prolonged e cause, risks transforming pre-trial ial the ment, an outcome antithetical to the Ergo, the unequivocal i fa failed to conclude within a reasona incarceration, it militates against the and liberty granted under the law overriding the statutory embargo crea A Act, 1985 ought to be considered as p words, grant of bail in a case pertain ground of undue delay in trial, cannot of the NDPS Act, 1985.” cal inference is that where the trial has has sonable time, resulting in prolonged ed life the precious fundamental rights of life law and, as such, conditional liberty rty created under Section 37 of the NDPS PS her as per facts of a given case. In other the rtaining to commercial quantity, on the 37 nnot be said to be fettered by Section 37 6.3. Further, as per the said custody ce stated ody certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved volved in 01 case/FIR pertaining to 01 g to NDPS Act and convicted in 01 another case/ F case/ FIR pertaining to IPC. However, ound ever, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by it t by itself, to decline the concession of er in ssion of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in que in question when a case is made out fo the t for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in questio uestion by ratiocinating upon the facts/ FIR. e facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in th in this regard can be placed upon n’ble upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Cour Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir R nd ir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Di f the ; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcu Calcutta High Court in case of Sridha CR ridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477