[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Emil Bodra vs State Of Punjab on 11 December, 2025
CRM-M-40575-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-40575-2025
EMIL BODRA .... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 10.12.2025
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 11.12.2025
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on 11.12.2025
the website
4 Whether only operative part of the judgment Full
is pronounced or whether the full judgment
is pronounced
5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of Not applicable
full judgment and reasons thereof.
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Ashish Nagar, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab
****
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. The instant one is the third petition for grant of regular bail
under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for
short 'BNSS') filed by the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No.0032
dated 17.04.2023 registered under Sections 18, 29 of Narcotics Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'NDPS') registered at PS
Sadar Banga, District SBS Nagar. The previous petitions as filed by the
petitioner had been dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.
1 of 7
2. As per the allegations, on 17.04.2023, the petitioner
alongwith the co-accused-Buddhu alias Ramu was found in conscious
possession of 5 Kg of opium which was taken into custody. The
petitioner and co-accused were formally arrested. Investigation now
stands completed and the petitioner alongwith the co-accused is facing
trial for commission of aforementioned offences.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has
been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody for a period of over
two years and seven months. False recovery has been planted upon him.
The trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 05 witnesses
have been examined, so far. He has clean antecedents. No useful
purpose would be served by his continued detention. It is, therefore,
argued that he deserves to be released on bail.
4. Per contra, learned State Counsel has argued that
commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the petitioner.
There are chances of his committing similar offences or absconding, if
extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that he does not deserve
to be released on bail.
5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by both the
parties.
6. The petitioner alongwith the co-accused is alleged to have
been found in conscious possession of commercial quantity of
contraband. He is in custody since 21.04.2023. The allegations prima
facie make out a case for commission of subject offences against him.
However, it is apparent from the record that there are no chances of
2 of 7
conclusion of the trial in near future and it will take considerable time.
The petitioner has remained in custody since long. 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 of Cr.P.C. which is applicable to offence under the Act. It
was also observed 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 Rabdi Prakash v. State of Odisha,
2023 SCC Online SC 110, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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, 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
3 of 7
recently pronounced verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court observing that
rigours 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
abovementioned case the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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 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 of India, 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.
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 of India
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. The similar benefit has been taken in another appeal i.e.
SLP No.15699-2025 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.
4 of 7
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 2 year and 7 months, the trial is not likely to be concluded in
near future; 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 02 surety
bonds, one of which should be a local surety and to the satisfaction of the
learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned
and on the following conditions:-
(i) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with
the evidence of the case in any manner whatsoever.
(ii) he shall not leave the country under any
circumstance without permission of the learned trial
Court.
(iii) he shall appear before the learned trial Court as
and when directed.
5 of 7
(iv) he shall provide his address where he would be
residing after release and shall not change the same
without informing the concerned IO/SHO.
(v) the petitioner shall upon his release give his
mobile phone number to concerned IO/SHO and
shall keep his mobile phone switch on all times.
(vi) he shall appear before the SHO of the
concerned Police Station wherein he is facing trial
on the first Monday of every month and shall record
his presence. The concerned SHO in case of any
default by the petitioner shall immediately inform
the learned Trial Court about the absence of the
petitioner who shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of
the petitioner after granting opportunity of being
heard.
(vii) he shall surrender his passport, if any, furnish
details of his cell phone and Aadhaar card, and shall
not change his mobile number(s) during the
pendency of the trial.
13. In the event of there being any FIR/complaint lodged
against the petitioner, it shall be open to the respondent-State to seek
redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail.
14. It is further clarified that if the petitioner violates any bail
condition, the State shall be at liberty to file an application for
cancellation of the bail before the trial Court.
6 of 7
15. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the
case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial.
16. Since the main petition has been allowed, pending
application, if any, is rendered infructuous.
(MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
11.12.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No
7 of 7
