Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jamshid Alias Jamshed vs State Of Haryana on 10 November, 2025

                                                                               1
CRM-
CRM-M-34145-
      34145-2025




212
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH

                                                             CRM-
                                                             CRM-M-34145-
                                                                    34145-2025
                                             Date of decision: November 10,
                                                                        10, 2025

Jamshid alias Jamshed
                                                                    ....Petitioner
                                                                      Petitioner
                                       versus
State of Haryana
                                                                  ....Respondent

CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:-
Present:      Mr. Balraj Gujjar, Advocate for the petitioner.

              Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

                                       *****
SUMEET GOEL,
       GOEL, J. (ORAL)

CRM-

CRM-43945- 43945-2025

Application herein is for correction in the head head-note note and prayer

clause of the main petition to the extent that the main petition is the second

petition instead of first petition for grant of regular bail bail.

For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed.

Registry to do the needful.

Main case (O&M)

Present second petition has been filed under Section 483 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ''BNSS') for grant of

regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No No.105 dated 17.05.2024,,

registered for the offences offences punishable unde under Section 21-C of the Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act')

1 of 8

CRM-

CRM-M-34145- 34145-2025

(Section 22-C of the NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station Dhauj,

Faridabad.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an

accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving

alleged recovery of 12 injections of Buprenorphine (2ml each) from co-

accused (Juned) and 22 such injections from the petitioner, total weighing

65.144 grams.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner

is in custody since 17.05.2024. Learned counsel has further submitted that

mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been

complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects.

Learned counsel has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof

cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated

that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 01½ years. Thus,

regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by

arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature

and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail.

Learned State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is

barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same

ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record

custody certificate dated 08.11.2025 in the Court today, which is taken on

record.

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through

the available records of the case.

2 of 8

CRM-

CRM-M-34145- 34145-2025

6. The petitioner was arrested on 17.05.2024 whereinafter

investigation was carried out and challan has been presented on 14.08.2024.

Total 20 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none has been examined

till date. It is thus, indubitable that conclusion of the trial will take long time.

The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall

be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it

appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it

may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to

indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of

justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1. Indubitably, the present petition is the second attempt by the

petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner

was dismissed as withdrawn on 03.03.2025. However, keeping in view

extended incarceration of the petitioner for a period of more than 08 months

and pace of the trial there being no substantial progress therein, this Court is

inclined to affirmatively consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable

reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in

CRA--S-2332 CRA 2332--2023 titled as Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and

another; relevant whereof reads as under:

"10. As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following principles emerge:

I Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof.

II. Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-prosecution or earlier petition was dismissed on merits.

III For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently

3 of 8

CRM-

CRM-M-34145- 34145-2025

required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. The metaphoric expression of seeking second/successive bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances.

IV No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive regular bail petition(s).

V In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed."

6.2. A perusal of the zimni orders passed by the trial Court, brought

forth by the petitioner, indicates that the trial is indeed procrastinating and

folly thereof cannot be saddled upon the petitioner. As per custody

certificate dated 08.11.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner

has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 year, 05 months and 22

days. In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the

NDPS Act stands diluted in light of the Article 21 of the Constitution of

India.

6.3. This Court in a judgment titled as Kulwinder versus State of

Punjab passed in CRM CRM--M-64074 64074--2024 (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying

upon the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul

Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi

Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494;

Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2023 INSC

311; Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 dated 07.02.2020 titled as "Chitta

4 of 8

CRM-

CRM-M-34145- 34145-2025

Biswas Alias Subhas vs. The State of West Bengal"; "Nitish Adhikary @

Bapan vs. The State of West Bengal", Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)

No.5530-2022 dated 22.08.2022 titled as "Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh

vs. The State of Gujarat"; Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated

05.08.2022 titled as Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma vs. Union of India,

and Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024(4) RCR

(Criminal) 172; has held, thus:

"7.8. The right to a speedy and expeditious trial is not only a vital safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration; to mitigate anxiety and concern accompanying the accusation as well as to curtail any impairment in the ability of an accused to defend himself, but there is an overarching societal interest paving way for a speedy trial. This right has been repeatedly actuated in the recent past and the ratio decidendi of the above-referred to Supreme Court's judgments have laid down a series of decisions opening up new vistas of fundamental rights. The concept of speedy trial is amalgamated into the Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty, guaranteed and preserved under our Constitution. The right to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint imposed at the time of the arrest of the accused and consequent incarceration which continues at all stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible prejudice that may result due to impermissible and avoidable delay since the time of the commission of the offence till the criminal proceedings consummate into a finality, could be averted. The speedy trial, early hearing and quick disposal are sine qua non of criminal jurisprudence. The overcrowded Court-dockets, the heavy volume of work and the resultant pressure on the prosecution and the Police, indubitably keeps the entire criminal jurisprudential mechanism under stress and strain. However, this cannot be an excuse for keeping the sword of Damocles hanging on the accused for an indefinite period of time. It does not serve any credit to the criminal justice system, rather it makes for a sad state of affairs. The guarantee of a speedy trial is intended to avoid oppression and prevent delay by imposing on the Court and the prosecution an obligation to proceed with the trial with a reasonable dispatch. The guarantee serves a threefold purpose. Firstly, it protects the accused against oppressive pre- trial imprisonment; secondly, it relieves the accused of the anxiety and public suspicion due to unresolved criminal charges and lastly, it protects against the risk that evidence will be lost or memories dimmed by the passage of time, thus, impairing the ability of the accused to defend himself. It goes without saying that the consequences of pre-trial detention are grave. Accused, presumed innocent, till proven otherwise, are subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of jail-life, usually under onerous conditions. Equally important, the burden of detention of such an accused frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his family.

There is yet another aspect of the matter which deserves consideration at this stage. The allegations in the present case relate to

5 of 8

CRM-

CRM-M-34145- 34145-2025

accused being involved in an FIR relating to commercial quantity of contraband under the NDPS Act, 1985. While considering a bail petition in a case involving commercial quantity, the Court has to keep in mind the rigours enumerated under Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 which mandates that Courts can grant bail to an accused only after hearing the public prosecutor and after having satisfied itself of twin conditions which are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged/alleged and that, he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The stringent rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 must be meticulously scrutinized against the backdrop of accused's fundamental right to a speedy trial. The right to life and personal liberty cannot be rendered nugatory by unwarranted delays in the judicial process, particularly where such delay(s) is neither attributable to the accused nor justified at the end of the prosecution by cogent reasons. An individual cannot be kept behind bars for an inordinate period of time by taking refuge in rigours laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The legislature in its wisdom, in order to ensure speedy and timely disposal of the cases under the Act, has provided for the constitution of special Courts under Section 36-A of the Act. However, this Court cannot turn Nelson's eye to the protracted delays and systematic inefficiency that frustrate this legislative purpose. A Court of law is duty-bound to ensure that it does not become complicit in violation of an individual's fundamental rights, notwithstanding anything contained in a statute. While dealing with bail petition in a case governed by the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, the Court must strike a judicious balance between the legislative intent to curb the menace of drugs and the sacrosanct right of the accused to a fair and expeditious trial. Prolonged incarceration, without justifiable cause, risks transforming pre-trial detention into punitive imprisonment, an outcome antithetical to the principle of justice and equity.

Ergo, the unequivocal inference is that where the trial has failed to conclude within a reasonable time, resulting in prolonged incarceration, it militates against the precious fundamental rights of life and liberty granted under the law and, as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 ought to be considered as per facts of a given case. In other words, grant of bail in a case pertaining to commercial quantity, on the ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985."

6.4. Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is

stated to be involved in other FIR(s). However, this factum cannot be a

ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the

petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular

bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of

the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P.

and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of

6 of 8

CRM-

CRM-M-34145- 34145-2025

the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2)

RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022

titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and

Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an

undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is

ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to

the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However,

in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial

Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following

conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

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

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

(viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail.

In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof.

7 of 8

CRM-

CRM-M-34145- 34145-2025

8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those

which may be imposed by concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed

hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the

State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the

petitioner.

9. Ordered accordingly.

10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of

opinion on the merits of the case.

11. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous