Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder vs State Of Haryana on 27 April, 2026
CRM-M-15642--2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(214) CRM-M-15642-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision : 27.04.2026
2026
RAVINDER
...
.. Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Rajesh Tushar, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana
****
MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)
1. The instant one is the third petition filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS") for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. No.301 301 dated 01.08.2024 registered under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short "NDPS Act") at Police Station Ladwa, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra. Previous two petitions as filed by him had been dismissed as withdrawn.
2. As per the allegations, on 01.08.2024, 01 kg and 10 grams of charas was recovered from the conscious possession possession of the present petitioner and the co-accused, accused, who were formally arrested and are in custody since then. AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.27 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-15642--2026 (O&M) 2
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been a change in the circumstances as the co-accused co accused Ajay against whom similar allegations were levelled has since been extended benefit of bail. It is stressed that on parity, he too deserves to be extended the same benefit. It is also argued that each day spent by him in custody has furnished a new ground in his favour to make prayer rayer for grant of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.
4. Status report and custody certificate have been filed by learned State counsel. It is argued by learned State counsel that the petition is a successive petition on and is not maintainable. There is a call detail record between the petitioner and the co-accused co accused Pale Khan showing that the petitioner who was the supplier of the contraband had an active complicity in the crime. The trial may be expedited. It is, therefore, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.
5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by the parties at considerable length.
6. The petitioner was apprehended by the police party and commercial quantity of contraband had been been recovered from his conscious possession. The allegations against him prima facie make out a case for commission of the subject offences by the petitioner. So far as the question of maintainability of this petition being successive one is concerned, iitt may be mentioned that, an accused has a right to move successive bail application for grant of bail and it is the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a subsequent bail application, to AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.27 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-15642--2026 (O&M) 3
consider that any fresh ground which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application is made out or not. It is also required to be noted that every day spent by an accused in custody provides a new cause of action for filing a bail application under certain circumstances. He cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period and the bail application can be considered even if it is filed repeatedly. The denial of bail comes with a condition that the prosecution must press for early completion of the trial. The petitioner is in custody since 03.08.2024. Similarly situated co-accused accused has been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended benefit of bail. Even otherwise only nly 01 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. There are no chances of conclusion of trial in the near future. It is well settled proposition of law 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 observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. 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 436 A of Cr.P.C. which is applicable to offence under the Act. It was also observed that 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 and 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 LiveLaw (SC) 533, AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.27 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-15642--2026 (O&M) 4
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had extended benefit of bail to the accused who had been incarcerated 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 Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025, which is a recently pronounced verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court observing that rigors of Sectio Sectionn 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 above-mentioned above mentioned case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that appellant who who was being prosecuted for being in possession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, was entitled for bail in view of her incarceration for a period of 19 months.
8. Similarly in another case i.e. in the case of Satender Kumar Antil reau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 prolonged incarceration v. Central Bureau 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.
AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.27 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-15642--2026 (O&M) 5
9. In the case of Ismail Khan @ Path Pathan an vs. State of Rajasthan Crminal 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. Similar benefit has been extended in another appeal i.e. SLP No.15699-2025 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 01 year, 08 months and 23 days. The trial trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as only 01 out of 14 prosecution witnesses hass been examined so far. 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 petitioner will not participate in the trial or will abscond.
12. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.27 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-15642--2026 (O&M) 6
13. In the eventuality of breach of any ooff the aforementioned conditions, the respondent-State respondent State shall be at liberty to move an application seeking cancellation of the bail.
14. It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this C Court ourt on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner.
15. Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.
(MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
27.04.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No
AMIT SHARMA
2026.04.27 18:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.