High Court · 2026

Judgment

1. The instant petition filed by the pe The the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik agarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for nt of 3 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in cas

in case arising out of FIR No.25 date 5 dated 14.04.2023 registered under Section 18(c), 25 c), 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Act, s and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “ “NDPS”) (Section 25 of NDPS 419, DPS deleted later on) (Sections 419, 468, 471 and 473 o d 473 of IPC added later on) at Police strict Police Station Chohla Sahib, District Tarn Taran.

2. As per the allegations, on 14.04.20 As p .04.2023, the Police officials were doing patrolling d lling duty at Naka T Point Nikka C One kka Chohla, Fatehabad Road. One Canter Eicher bea er bearing registration No.PB02-EC h 02 EC-7410 was stopped in which 02 persons were sittin e sitting. The person sitting on the dri e as the driver seat disclosed his name as Sukhjinder Singh Singh i.e. the present petitioner and the and the other one disclosed his name AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.16 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-65794- -2025 (O&M) 2 as Harpal Singh @ ingh @ Bhallu. On conducting sear 800 g search of the vehicle, 2 KG 800 Grams of opium w pium was recovered which was taken lice. taken into possession by the Police. The petitioner and er and co-accused were formally arres y arrested. Investigation now stands completed.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for t It is l for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated icated in this case. A false recovery ha His very has been planted upon him. His continued detentio etention would not serve any useful useful purpose. He is in prolonged incarceration for a n for a period of over 02 years and 10 and 10 months. However, there has not been much pro ch progress in the trial as only 03 pro prosecution witnesses, have been examined so far. . He is not involved in other cases . It r cases and has clean antecedents. It is thus, urged that d that the petition deserves to be allow allowed.

4. Status report and custody certificate h Status State icate have been filed. Learned State counsel has argue argued that commercial quantity of c ty of contraband had been recovered from conscious po ous possession of the petitioner. The DPS . The rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are attracted acted in this case. There are chanc itting chances of petitioner’s committing similar offences, i nces, if extended benefit of bail. It t the il. It is, therefore, stressed that the petitioner does not bail. es not deserve to be released on bail.

5. This Court has heard the rival submis This C ubmissions made by learned counsel for both the parties parties at considerable length.

6. The petitioner is in custody for a peri The p nths. a period of 02 years and 10 months. There are no cha o chances of conclusion of trial in y 03 rial in the near future as only 03 prosecution witnes witnesses have been examined so far so far. It is well settled proposition of law that grant grant of bail on account of delay d of delay in trial and long period of AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.16 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-65794- -2025 (O&M) 3 incarceration is to is to be considered in the light of Act. ht of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reliance in this re this regard can be placed upon the o the observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in Mo n Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. Sta CC . State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, 52, wherein it was held that grant of t of bail on account of undue delay in trial cannot be ot be said to be fettered under Sectio Section 37 of the NDPS Act, given the imperative of S ve of Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. which which is applicable to offence under the Act. It was was also observed that jails are o are overcrowded and their living conditions are, m are, more often than not, appalling tified palling. The danger of unjustified imprisonment is nt is that inmates are more likely likely to be hardened rather than reformed. Relianc eliance can also be placed upon Man Manmandal and Another v. State of West Bengal, S al, Special Leave Petition (Criminal inal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on

14.09.2023 and R nd Rabi Prakash v. State of Odis 33, Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533, wherein the Hon’b Hon’ble Supreme Court had extended tended benefit of bail to the accused who had been in een incarcerated for a long period eriod by observing that prolonged incarceration milit n militated against the most precious ecious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 o le 21 of the Constitution and in such such a situation, the constitutional principles must ov ust override the statutory embargo c 7 of argo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

7. Reliance can also be placed upon Relia upon Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & h & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.48 o.4883/2025, which is a recently pronounced verdic verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court ob ourt observing that rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act w Act will not be a bar for considering r bail ering the case of an accused for bail as it comes with with a condition that the prosecuti osecution would press for an early completion of tria of trial. In the above-mentioned case d case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that appella ppellant who was being prosecuted n of ecuted for being in possession of AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.16 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-65794- -2025 (O&M) 4 commercial quant quantity of narcotic substance, was e f her was entitled for bail in view of her incarceration for a n for a period of 19 months.(cid:1)

8. Similarly in another case i.e. in the c Simil n the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau reau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SC 0 SCC 51 prolonged incarceration and inordinate del te delay engaged the attention of the H f the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which considered the cor he correct approach towards bail, with ents, l, with respect to several enactments, including Section ection 37 NDPS Act. The court expre t expressed the opinion that Section 436A (which requ h requires inter alia the accused to be ial is to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded wit ed within specified periods) of the Cr 1973 the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 would apply.(cid:1)

9. In the case of Ismail Khan @ Pa In th Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan Crminal Appeal eal No.4911 of 2025 with regard regard to recovery of commercial quantity of narcoti narcotic substance, the Hon’ble Supre Supreme Court accorded the benefit of bail to the accus e accused in view of prolonged incarce incarceration for a period of 02 years and 08 months of t ths of the accused.(cid:1)

10. Similar benefit has been extended Simil LP ended in another appeal i.e. SLP No.15699-2025 tit 25 titled as Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK SK vs. The State of West Bengal and in the case of ase of Pamesh Arora vs. UT Chandig 72 ndigarh Criminal Appeal No.4872 of 2025.(cid:1)

11. On analyzing the peculiar facts and On an ts and circumstances of the present case in the light o light of the aforementioned principle t the nciples of law, it transpires that the petitioner has suff as suffered prolonged incarceration fo 0 tion for a period of 02 years and 10 months. The tria he trial is not likely to be conclude y 03 ncluded in near future as only 03 AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.16 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-65794- -2025 (O&M) 5 prosecution witne witnesses have been examined so fa d so far. The petitioner’s has clean antecedents. The The continued detention of the petiti e petitioner is not likely to serve any fruitful purpose. T ose. There is nothing on record to sho l, the to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not ill not participate in the trial or will ab ill abscond.

12. In view of the above discussion, this In vie hat a n, this Court is of the opinion that a case is made out f e out for grant of bail to the petitioner , the itioner at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed llowed and the petitioner is ordered to ct to ered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing pers g personal as well as surety bonds to nds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief J hief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistr agistrate concerned.

13. In the event of there being any FIR In the t the y FIR/complaint lodged against the petitioner, it shall t shall be open to the respondent-State g an State to seek redressal by filing an application seekin seeking cancellation of bail.

14. It is, however, clarified that the obse It is, l not e observations made above shall not be construed as an d as an expression of opinion of this C this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influ t influence the outcome of the trial in a ial in any manner. (cid:1)

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

16.02.2026 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 2026.02.16 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.