Inderbir Singh Alias Inder vs State Of Punjab
2025 Latest Caselaw 5879 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Inderbir Singh Alias Inder vs State Of Punjab on 9 December, 2025

CRM-M-57015-2025


                  - 1-


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH
230
                                                   CRM-M-57015-2025
                                                   Date of decision:09.12.2025

INDERBIR SINGH ALIAS INDER
                                                                     ....Petitioner

                                 VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB
                                                                    ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR

Present :    Mr. Jasvir Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Gorav Kathuria, DAG Punjab.

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)

1. Present petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR

No.208 dated 24.10.2023, under Sections 21, 25, 27(A)/61/85 of NDPS Act,

registered at Police Station Gharinda, District Amritsar, Punjab.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 24.10.2023, Sub-Inspector

Dilbagh Singh along with other police officials was on patrolling duty, when he

received a secret information that one person namely Inderbir Singh @ Inder was

involved in the business of smuggling heroin from Pakistan and selling it. If he is

apprehended, a huge quantity of heroin can be recovered. Thereafter, a naka was laid

and a young man was seen coming from village Sarai Amanat Khan side on an

Activa scooter, who on seeing the police party tried to flee but he was apprehended

by the police party. On asking, accused disclosed his name as Inderbir Singh @

Inder (petitioner). Upon search, 470 grams of heroin along with drug money of

1 of 5

CRM-M-57015-2025

- 2-

Rs.25,000/- were recovered. The contraband and the drug money were taken into

possession. Petitioner was arrested and after completion of investigation, challan has

been presented against the accused for trial.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State

counsel and have gone through the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has

been falsely implicated. Learned counsel next contended that the petitioner is in

custody since 24.10.2023 and after completion of investigation, challan has been

presented. However, the case is still at the stage of prosecution evidence and trial

has not been concluded and conclusion of the trial is likely to take a long time.

Learned counsel further contended that in view of his long incarceration,

petitioner is entitled to be released on bail, as prolonged incarceration, generally

militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21

of the Constitution and the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo

created under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In support of his contention, learned

counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgments passed in CRM-M-21794 of

2023 - Sandeep Singh v. State of Punjab decided on 05.05.2023, CRR-1785 of

2018 (O&M)- Vicky Kaur v. State of Punjab, decided on 13.08.2018, CRM-M-

14029 of 2018 Kamlesh v. State of Punjab, decided on 06.05.2015, CRM-M-

17321 of 2025 Jassu Ram @ Jasuram v. State of Punjab, decided on

04.04.2025 and a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal

(Crl.) No. (s).12788/2023 - Nandalal Mondal @ Abhay Mondal v. The State of

West Bengal, judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal

No.4883/2025 - Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. decided on

14.11.2025 and (2022) 10 SCC 52, Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau

2 of 5

CRM-M-57015-2025

- 3-

of Investigation.

5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has opposed the bail and

argued that the petitioner has committed a heinous crime as he was found in

possession of 470 grams of heroin (commercial quantity) alongwith drug money

of Rs.25,000/- and in view of rigors contained in statutory provision of Section 37

of NDPS Act, he is not entitled to the benefit of bail.

6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2023 Live Law (SC) 533, Rabi Prakash

v. State of Odisha has held that prolonged incarceration, generally militates

against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the

statutory embargo created under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. To the same effect

is the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2024 (4) RCR (Criminal) 172,

Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2023 AIR(SC) 1648,

Mohammad Muslim alias Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) in which Hon'ble

Supreme Court while granting regular bail to an accused, from whom commercial

quantity of contraband was recovered, has held that grant of bail on the ground of

undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

A co-ordinate Bench of this Court has also held so in judgment reported as Law

Finder Doc Id #2770222 Garpawandeep Singh alias Bihari v. State of Punjab

decided vide judgment dated 27.08.2025 passed in CRM-M-19408 of 2025

wherein 260 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered. Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.12788/2023 titled Nandalal Mondal alias

Abhay Mondal v. The State of West Bengal, vide judgment dated 03.01.2024

while taking into consideration the period of custody already undergone by the

3 of 5

CRM-M-57015-2025

- 4-

petitioner/under- trial, the fact that he does not have any criminal antecedents and

also keeping in view the prolonged incarceration, ordered release of the petitioner

on bail who was found in possession of 10,000 ml of codeine phosphate - a cough

syrup which falls within the commercial quantity. Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025 titled Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

& Anr. (supra), has 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. In Satender Kumar Antil's

case (supra), prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which considered the correct approach

towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 of NDPS

Act. The Court expressed the opinion that Section 436A of Criminal Procedure

Code, 1973 (which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial

is not concluded within specified periods) would apply.

7. In the present case also, petitioner was found in possession of 470

grams of heroin which falls within commercial quantity alongwith a sum of

Rs.25,000/- stated to be drug money. Petitioner is in custody since 24.10.2023 and

after completion of investigation, challan has already been presented but the trial

has not been concluded till date and there is also no likelihood of the same being

concluded soon. As such, the conditional liberty must override the statutory

embargo created under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and grant of bail on the

ground of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the

NDPS Act. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of

the present case and also the ratio of law laid down in afore-mentioned case laws,

4 of 5

CRM-M-57015-2025

- 5-

I am of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner

in custody and resultantly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is

ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond and surety bond to the

satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, on usual terms and

conditions. However, in addition to the terms and conditions that may be imposed

by the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, petitioner shall remain bound by the

following conditions:-

(i) Petitioner shall not misuse the concession of bail granted to him.

(ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary during the trial.

(iii) Petitioner shall regularly appear before the trial Court and he will not commit any offence of similar nature while on bail.

(iv) Petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(v) Petitioner shall not in any manner delay the trial.

8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions or the

conditions that may be imposed by the trial Court or upon any other

sufficient cause, the State shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail.

                                                  (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
09.12.2025                                                JUDGE
Priyanka Thakur
             Whether speaking/reasoned.       :      Yes/No
             Whether Reportable.              :      Yes/No




                                     5 of 5