Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anil Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 19 November, 2025
CRM-M-56166-2025 1
235
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-56166-2025
Date of Decision: 19.11.2025
ANIL KUMAR ......... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present : Mr. Kartar Singh, Advocate with
Mr. Sudesh Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rahul Jindal, AAG, 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.69 dated 25.09.2023, under Sections 22-C and
29 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Sadar Rampura, District
Bathinda.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 25.09.2023,
Anil Kumar (petitioner), Sunil Kumar and Amit Kumar Deswal were
apprehended by the police party headed by SI Jagroop Singh on the basis
of suspicion. During their personal search, 10 vials of Max Coff, 25 vials
of Onerex, 900 tablets of Alprazolam and 800 tablets of Carisoprodol and
800 tablets of Tramadol were recovered, out of which, Alprazolam and
Tramadol falls within the definition of narcotic substance and
subsequently, they were arrested.
1 of 5
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 25.09.2023 and after completion of
usual investigation, challan has been presented. Out of 14 prosecution
witnesses, only 07 witnesses have been examined till date. The trial is
likely to take some more time to conclude. Learned counsel further
contended that prolonged incarceration and undue delay in disposal of the
trial can over-ride the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act considering
the fundamental right of personal liberty of petitioner under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India and learned counsel prayed that petitioner be
released on bail. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon judgments of this Court in CRM-M-21794 of
2023-Sandeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab decided on 05.05.2023, CRR-
1785 of 2018 (O&M)-Vicky Kaur Vs. State of Punjab, decided on
13.08.2018, CRM-M-14029 of 2018-Kamlesh Vs. State of Punjab,
decided on 06.05.2015, CRM-M-17321 of 2025-Jassu Ram @ Jasuram
Vs. 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 Vs. The State of
West Bengal.
5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has opposed the
bail and argued that huge quantity of contraband has been recovered,
which falls within the commercial quantity and rigors of Section 37 of
NDPS Act are attracted, which bar grant of bail, unless twin conditions
2 of 5
prescribed in the said provision are satisfied. However, in view of the
huge recovery, it cannot be presumed that petitioner is not guilty of the
offence or that he is not likely to commit the offence, in case he is
released on bail. Learned counsel contended that the bail application be
dismissed.
6. As per prosecution case, petitioner and his co-accused were
found to be in conscious possession of 10 vials of Max Coff, 25 vials of
Onerex, 900 tablets of Alprazolam and 800 tablets of Carisoprodol and
800 tablets of Tramadol. However, only 900 tablets of Alprazolam and
800 tablets of Tramadol falls within commercial quantity. The petitioner
is in custody since 25.09.2023 and only 07 witnesses have been examined
till date, out of 14 witnesses cited by the prosecution, and trial thus has
been delayed and there is also no likelihood of the same being concluded
soon. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2023 Live Law (SC) 533, Rabi
Prakash Vs. 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 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and 2023 AIR(SC) 1648,
Mohammad Muslim alias Hussain Vs. 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
3 of 5
Court has also held so in judgment reported as Law Finder Doc Id
#2770222 - Garpawandeep Singh alias Bihari Vs. 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 while deciding Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal)
No.12788/2023 titled Nandalal Mondal alias Abhay Mondal Vs. The
State of West Bengal, vide judgment dated 03.01.2024 while taking 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 keeping in view the prolonged incarceration,
ordered release of the petitioner on bail who was also found in possession
of 10,000 ml of codeine phosphate - a cough syrup which falls
within the commercial quantity. As such, in view of the prolonged
detention, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Even otherwise,
the co-accused namely Sunil Kumar, who was also apprehended along
with the petitioner and whose case is identical to that of the petitioner,
has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated
25.09.2025, and the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail even on
the ground of parity.
7. 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
4 of 5
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.
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)
JUDGE
19.11.2025
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
