T SINGH @ GAGGU v. PUNJAB

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab Ms. S **** (cid:1) MANISHA BATR BATRA, J. (ORAL)(cid:1)

The instant petition has been filed The by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya N atiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in in case arising out of FIR No.23 233 dated 24.12.2023 registered under Sections 22 ons 22(C) and 29 of Narcotic Drugs Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for sho or short “NDPS”) at Police Station Ci inda. ion City Rampura, District Bathinda. The first petition a tition as filed by the petitioner had bee ad been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 02.04.

02.04.2025.

As per the allegations, on 24.12.2023 As pe - 2.2023, the petitioner alongwith co- accused Satnam nam Singh was apprehended and recov ty of d recovery of commercial quantity of contraband i.e. 7 i.e. 7600 intoxicating tablets of Tr ts of of Tramadol and 3600 tablets of Alprazolam, had b had been effected from his conscious scious possession, which were taken y. into custody. The petitioner and co-accus sted. accused were formally arrested. Investigation now n now stands completed and he along alongwith the co-accused is facing trial for commissio mission of the aforementioned offence offences. AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.10 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-42596 2596-2025 (O&M) 2

It is argued by learned counsel for t It is a for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated licated in this case. A false recovery him. covery has been planted upon him. The petitioner and er and the co-accused were apprehen prehended and wrongfully confined by the Police on th e on the night of 23.12.2024. The key he keys of their lab had been forcibly taken by the poli e police officials. The camera ins o be ra installed therein was tried to be disabled and DVR d DVR was removed. He is in cus in custody since long. His further incarceration wou n would not serve any useful pu ul purpose. The trial will take considerable time e time to conclude as only charges ha Each ges have been framed so far. Each day spent by him y him in custody has furnished a grou a ground for seeking benefit of bail afresh. The co-ac accused has already been extended y, he tended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be s to be extended the same benefit. I t the efit. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves t erves to be allowed.

Status report and custody certificate h Status State icate have been filed. Learned State counsel has argue argued that there are serious and sp t the and specific allegations against the petitioner. Comm Commercial quantity of contraband him. band had been recovered from him. The rigors of Sec f Section 37 of the NDPS Act are This ct are attracted in this case. This petition being succ g successive petition is not maintaina ntainable. It is, therefore, urged that the petition does n does not deserve to be allowed.

This Court has heard the rival subm This l submissions made by the learned counsel for the par the parties at considerable length.

The petitioner alongwith the co-acc The accused is alleged to have been found in consciou nscious possession of commercial qua ts as ial quantity of intoxicating tablets as on 24.12.2023.

The allegations prima facie make n of make out a case for commission of subject offences as nces as against the petitioner. Howeve owever, he is in custody for a period AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.10 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-42596 2596-2025 (O&M) 3 of over two years. years. The trial is likely to take consi considerable time to conclude since only charges have s have been framed only. This factor, rt, is actor, in the opinion of this Court, is a ground to move move for bail afresh. The Hon’ble A in a ble Apex Court has observed in a catena of cases tha ses that an accused cannot be kept in c pt in custody for an indefinite period of time and the ba the bail application can be considered idered on its own merits even if it is filed repeatedly. edly. It has also been held that eve at every day spent in custody can provide a new c new cause of action for filing a b g a bail application under certain circumstances. T es. This principle is a part of the b the broader approach emphasizing that law prefers b fers bail over jail, aiming to balance lance the rights of the accused with the requirements o ents of the criminal justice system. f is a tem. Prolonged detention itself is a ground for recons reconsideration of bail since the se the settled principle of law is that detention prior to ior to trial should not become punitive unitive. It is well settled proposition of law that prolon prolonged incarceration generally mili militates against the most precious fundamental right l right guaranteed under Article 21 of 21 of the Constitution and in such cases, when there there is delay in conclusion of trial w lt on l without there being any fault on the part of the accu he accused, he becomes entitled to be r to be released on bail. Since the trial of this case, appar apparently and evidently is shown t such, own to have been delayed, as such, this Court is of th s of the considered opinion that no fru no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the pet the petitioner in custody any more. On to be On parity also, he deserves to be released on bail. bail. Accordingly, the petition is er is on is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be adm admitted to bail subject to his furnis furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisf satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM rt/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned.

Howe owever, it will be open for th for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of b of bail in case the petitioner is f r is found involved in any other subsequent case an case and if it appears that it is on acco ct of n account of any act and conduct of AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.10 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-42596 2596-2025 (O&M) 4 the petitioner that r that further delay is being caused in l and sed in the conclusion of the trial and further subject to h ect to his abiding by the following cond conditions: (i) The petitioner will not tamper w (i) mper with evidence during trial. (ii) The petitioner will appear befo (ii) r before the Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless his prese presence is exempted by specified order of the Court. (iii) The petitioner shall not dire (iii y ot directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to a h the se to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade h uade him from disclosing such facts officer. to the Court or to any police officer to t (iv) Any infraction shall entail i (iv) ntail in withdrawal of the benefit granted by the Court.

In the eventuality of breach of In th h of any of the aforementioned conditions, the re the respondent-State shall be at lib at liberty to move an application seeking cancellatio cellation of the bail.

It is made clear that any observation It is m y for vation made herein above is only for the purpose of dec of deciding the present petition and t and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of th s of the case.

Since the main petition has been all Since n, if een allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered in ered infructuous.

09.02.2026 Amit Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:8)(cid:6) Yes/No (cid:1) (MANISHA BATRA)(cid:1) (MA JUDGE(cid:1) AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.10 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.