Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gulab Khan @ Ashu vs State Of Punjab on 30 April, 2026
CRM-M-10618--2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(216) CRM-M-10618-2026 (O&M)
2026
Date of decision : 30.04.2026
GULAB KHAN @ ASHU
...
.. Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Iqbal Singh Mann, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab
***
MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)
1. The instant one is the second 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.162 162 dated 19.10.2022 registered under Section 22C of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short "NDPS Act) at Police Station Kabarwala, District Sri Muktsar Sahib. The previous petition bearing CRM-M-47565 CRM 47565-2023 2023 had been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 14.01.2025.
2. As per the allegations, the petitioner along with cco-accused was found in conscious possession of commercial commercial quantity of contraband, namely,Tramado ol Hydrochloride on 19.10.2022, 9.10.2022, which was taken into custody.
The petitioner along with co-accused co d is presently facing trial for commission of AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-10618--2026 (O&M) 2
the aforementioned ned offences.
offences. His previous petition had been dismissed vide order dated 14.01.2025 14.01 by this Court by passing following order :
"As per the allegations, the petitioners were apprehended by the police party on 19.10.2022 and recovery of 3500 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride was effected from petitioner Amandeep Tramadol Singh alias Amna, whereas 3000 of the same salt were recovered from petitioner Gulab Khan @ Ashu. The quantity of the recovered contraband obviously falls under the commercial quantity. Hence, the rigors rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would certainly be attracted against the petitioners. As regards the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to non non--
compliance of the statutory provisions of the NDPS Act during investigation by by the police party, the same have direct bearing on the merits of the case, which cannot be looked into at this stage while deciding a bail petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. There is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in in conclusion of trial. Since the petitioners are shown to be having criminal antecedents, the apprehension expressed by learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab that the petitioners, if extended benefit of bail, may abscond or indulge in similar offences can an also not be stated to be unfounded. Keeping in view the discussion as made above, the quantity of recovered contraband, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.CRM-M-10618--2026 (O&M) 3
considered opinion that the petitioners do not deserve to be granted benefit of regular bail, at this stage. Hence, the petitions are dismissed."
3. It is argued by learned counsel counsel for the petitioner that ever since the dismissal of the previous petition petiti for grant of regular bail as filed by the petitioner, the trial has not progressed much since only 02 prosecution witnesses have been produced and those too have been examined examined-in-chief chief only and have not appeared for their cross-examination.
cross examination. There are no chances of cconclusion onclusion of the trial in near future. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him.
him. He is in custody since 19.10.2022..
Prolonged incarceration of the petitioner without any possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is against the fundamental right of liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished a new ground to him to seek benefit of bail afresh. With these broad submissions, itt is argued that he deserves to be extended the benefit of bail.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the petition is not maintainable as the previous petition as filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed by passing a detailed order and this is a successive bail petition. There is no drastic or substantive change in the circumstances. Rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in this case. The trial may be expedited. Hence, it is, stressed that he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail.
5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.
AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-10618--2026 (O&M) 4
6. The petitioner was apprehended by the police party and commercial quantity of contraband had 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, it 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 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 provi provides des 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 th that at the prosecution must press for early completion of the trial. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner. He has clean antecedents. He is in custody since 19.10.2022.
.10.2022. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. It is well settled proposition osition 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 of Cr.P.C. which ch is applicable to offence under the Act. It was also observed that jails are overcrowded and their living AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-10618--2026 (O&M) 5
conditions are, more often than not, appalling. The danger of unjustified imprisonment is that inmates are more likely to be hardened rather than reformed.
formed. 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, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had had extended benefit of bail to the accused who had been 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, tthe he 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 Section 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 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 another case i.e. in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-10618--2026 (O&M) 6
considered the correct approach towards bail, with 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 Procedu Procedure re Code, 1973 would apply.
9. In the case of Ismail Khan @ Pathan 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 cused 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 incarceration for a period of 03 years, 06 months and 07 days. The trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as only 02 out of 12 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The continued detention of the petitioner is not likely to serve any fru fruitful itful purpose.
There is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate in the trial or will abscond.
AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.30 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-10618--2026 (O&M) 7
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.
13. In the eventuality of breach of any of 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 Court 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.
infr
(MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
30.04.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No
AMIT SHARMA
2026.04.30 17:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.