[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balvinder Singh @ Binder vs State Of Punjab on 15 December, 2025
S. No.228
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M-5301 of 2025
Date of Decision:15.12.2025
Balvinder Singh @ Binder .....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab .....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present:- Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate and
Ms. Shrinkhla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gorav Kathuria, DAG, Punjab.
****
Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. (Oral)
1. This is first petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.58 dated
09.04.2024 registered under Sections 15, 27 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, at Police Station Special Task Force, Mohali.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 09.04.2024, SI Baljeet
Singh along with other police officials was present near Railway Station, Phase-11,
Mohali in connection with patrolling duty, when he received secret information to
the effect that Balvinder Singh (petitioner) was working on one Canter bearing regis-
tration No.PB-65-BD-9224 mark Bharat Benz and transports goods from Punjab to
Rajasthan and he brings poppy husk under the garb of the same. Petitioner was ap-
prehended and 100 kg. poppy husk was recovered kept in five bags each containing
20 kg. poppy husk.
1 of 5
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 09.04.2024 and after completion of investigation, challan has been
presented. Thereafter, charge has been framed. 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 pro-
longed 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 judg-
ments passed in CRM-M-21794 of 2023 - Sandeep Singh v. State of Punjab de-
cided on 05.05.2023, CRR-1785 of 2018 (O&M)- Vicky Kaur v. State of Pun-
jab, decided on 13.08.2018, CRM-M-14029 of 2018 Kamlesh v. State of Pun-
jab, 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
2 of 5
@ 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 of Investigation.
5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has opposed the bail and ar-
gued that the petitioner has committed a heinous crime as he was found in posses-
sion of 100 Kg. of poppy husk (commercial quantity) and in view of rigors con-
tained 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, Moham-
mad 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
3 of 5
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 tak-
ing into consideration the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner/
under- trial, the fact that he does not have any criminal antecedents and also keep-
ing 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 ex-
pressed 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 100
Kg. of poppy husk which falls within commercial quantity. Petitioner is in custody
since 09.04.2024 and after completion of investigation, challan has already been
presented but the same has not been concluded till date and there is also no likeli-
hood of the same being concluded soon. As such, the conditional liberty must
4 of 5
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, 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 documen-
tary 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 condi-
tions 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)
Judge
December 15, 2025
renu
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
