Judgment · High Court · 2026

Judgment

#1. The instant one is the second petitio The petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 48 on 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surak Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for gran r grant of regular bail in case aris

e arising out of FIR No.22 dated

27.03.2024 registe registered under Section 22 of the Na Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (fo t (for short “NDPS”) at Police Stat grur. ce Station Sherpur, District Sangrur. Her previous petiti s petition was dismissed by this Court Court on 21.05.2025.

#2. As per As p the allegations, on 27.0

27.03.2024, the petitioner was apprehended by th d by the Police on the basis of a sec ts of secret information 470 tablets of Parazolam and 39 and 390 tablets of Uszol-0.50 (both h both having Alprazolam salt) were recovered from from her conscious possession. sted. n. She was formally arrested. Subsequently, the ly, the co-accused were arrested on on the basis of her disclosure statement. Investi ded. nvestigation now stands concluded. AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.24 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-67226- -2025 (O&M) 2

#3. It is argued by learned counsel for th It is l for the petitioner that she has been in custody since 2 since 27.03.2024. After the dismissa smissal of previous petition by this Court on 21.05.2

1.05.2025, the trial has not progres rogressed much as no prosecution witness has been been examined so far. The prolonge rolonged period of her incarceration has furnished a gr d a ground in her favour to seek con With ek concession of bail afresh. With these broad submi submissions, it is urged that she deserv deserves to be released on bail.

#4. Per contra, learned State counsel ha Per c sel has argued that the instant one being the second s cond successive petition is not mainta maintainable. The rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act a Act are attracted in this case. The p The petitioner is a habitual offender being convicted in cted in several cases under the provisi t and provisions of Punjab Excise Act and is under trial in ca l in cases of similar nature. There are g, if e are chances of her absconding, if extended benefit enefit of bail. It is, therefore, argu , argued that the petition does not deserve to be allow e allowed.

#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 since 27 The p 7.03.2024. There are no chances of conclusion of on of trial in the near future as on only 02 out of 11 prosecution witnesses have bee been examined so far. It is well- -settled law that the Court, while considering an app an application for grant of bail, has t , has to keep certain factors in mind such as whether th ther there is a prima facie case or rea or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has co has committed the offence, circumsta o the umstances which are peculiar to the accused, likelihoo elihood of the offence being repeated f the peated, the nature and gravity of the AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.24 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-67226- -2025 (O&M) 3 accusation, severit severity of the punishment in the even er of e event of conviction, the danger of the accused absc d absconding or fleeing if release leased on bail, and reasonable apprehension of th n of the witnesses being threatened, et time, ned, etc. However, at the same time, the period of inc of incarceration is also a relevant f vant factor to be considered while deciding whether ether bail should be granted to an acc ence. an accused charged with an offence. The Hon’ble Ape e Apex Court has observed in a cat a catena of cases that an accused cannot be kept i kept in custody for an indefinite p inite period of time, and the bail application can be can be considered on its own merits e ly. It erits even if it is filed repeatedly. It has also been he n held that every day spent in custod se of custody can provide a new cause of action for filing a ling a bail application under certain ci le is rtain circumstances. This principle is a part of the broad broader approach emphasizing that la that law prefers bail over jail, aiming to balance the righ he rights of the accused with the requi requirements of the criminal justice system. It is well s well settled proposition of law that gr that grant of bail on account of delay in trial and long pe ong period of incarceration is to be co be considered in the light of Section 37 of the NDPS A PS Act. Reliance in this regard can be can be placed upon the observations made by Hon’ble ’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Muslim slim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC SCC OnLine SC 352, wherein it w il on in it was held that grant of bail on account of undue ndue delay in trial cannot be said to b 37 of id to be fettered under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, g Act, given the imperative of Section ch is Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. which is applicable to off to offence under the Act. It was was also observed that jails are overcrowded and t d and their living conditions are, more . The , more often than not, appalling. The danger of unjusti unjustified imprisonment is that inm o be at inmates are more likely to be hardened rather th ther than reformed. Reliance can also n also be placed upon Manmandal AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.24 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-67226- -2025 (O&M) 4 and Another v. v. State of West Bengal, Specia al) pecial Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 023 decided on 14.09.2023 and Rab ha, Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (S w (SC) 533, wherein the Hon’ble n’ble Supreme Court had extended benefit of bail to ail to the accused who had been inca d by n incarcerated for a long period by observing that pr hat prolonged incarceration militate ilitated against the most precious fundamental right l right guaranteed under Article 21 of ch a 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the con e constitutional principles must ov st override the statutory embargo contained under Se nder 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 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 AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.24 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-67226- -2025 (O&M) 5 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 tion for a period 01 year, 10 months and 24 days. The . The trial is not likely to be conclude 2 out ncluded in near future as only 02 out of 11 prosecution ecution witnesses have been exam examined so far. The continued detention of the p f the petitioner is not likely to serve re is serve any fruitful purpose. There is nothing on record record to show that if released on l not ed on bail, the petitioner will not participate in the t n the trial or will abscond. AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.24 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-67226- -2025 (O&M) 6

#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 her furnishing per ng 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. However, it will be open for th Howe or the prosecution to apply for cancellation of b of bail in case the petitioner is found involved in any other case. subsequent case.

#14. It is made clear that any observation It is m 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.

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

23.02.2026 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 2026.02.24 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.