[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dheeraj vs State Of Punjab on 2 April, 2026
CRM-M-12661-2026 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
216 CRM-M-12661-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision : 02.04.2026
Dheeraj
..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present : Mr. Dishant, Advocate for
Mr. Satnam Singh Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab.
*****
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.
This petition for bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner
under Section 483 of 'the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023'. It has
been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.98 dated 10.04.2025,
for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 22 and 29 of
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred
to as 'NDPS Act', Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar Rural.
2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of
'ASI Umesh Kumar', who reported that on 10.04.2025, when he was leading
a team of police officials, deputed for patrolling duty, on the basis of
suspicion, two persons were apprehended, who on enquiries disclosed their
names as 'Ajay Kumar @Ajju' and 'Happy'. According to report, submitted
by above-named police official, when the search of the above-named two
persons were conducted, 30 tablets of Etizolam and 60 tablets of Alprazolam
CRM-M-12661-2026 (O&M)
were recovered from the possession of 'Ajay Kumar @Ajju'. It was also
reported by the above-named police official that same quantity of
contraband was also recovered from the possession of 'Happy', also.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of
abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure &
sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were
completed, and further investigation taken up. According to prosecution,
during the course of investigation, when accused, namely Happy, was
interrogated, he suffered a disclosure statement, wherein he revealed that the
supplier of abovementioned contraband to him was the present petitioner.
4. It is the further case of the prosecution that pursuant to
abovementioned disclosure statement, when the present petitioner was
arrested, a raid was conducted and from his possession, 40 tablets of
Etizolam were recovered.
5. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the
petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by
the State. However, the learned State Counsel has orally opposed the present
petition.
6. Heard.
7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner has clean antecedents, and that the benefit of bail has already
been accorded to co-accused, namely 'Ajay Kumar @Ajju', who was found
in possession of 30 tablets of Etizolam and 60 tablets of Alprazolam. It has
also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the custody
CRM-M-12661-2026 (O&M)
period, which has already been undergone by the petitioner in this case, is
much more than the custody period, which was undergone by co-accused
'Ajay Kumar @Ajju'. In view of above, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has urged for the benefit of bail for the petitioner also.
8. The learned State Counsel has controverted the above-
mentioned arguments. As per learned State Counsel since the quantity of
contraband recovered in this case comes within the ambit of 'commercial
quantity', unless the twin conditions enshrined under Section-37 of NDPS
Act are satisfied, the benefit of bail should not be accorded to the petitioner.
9. The record has been perused carefully.
10. Since the recovery of contraband in the case in hand comes
within the ambit of commercial quantity, the principles of law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Mohd. Muslim @
Hussain v. State' (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352 are relevant. In
the abovementioned case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has 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
which is applicable to offences under the Act.
11. In this regard it is also relevant to mention here that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Manmandal and Another v. State of
West Bengal', Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided
on 14.09.2023 and 'Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha', 2023 SCC Online SC
1109, extended the benefit of bail to the accused, who had been incarcerated
for a period of almost 2-3 years and the trial was likely to take considerable
CRM-M-12661-2026 (O&M)
time. The above-mentioned benefit has been given by observing that
prolonged incarceration generally militates 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.
12. In addition to above, in a recently pronounced verdict in the
case of 'Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr.' Criminal Appeal
No.4883/2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that rigors 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 above-mentioned 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.
13. 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
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India expressed the opinion that Section 436A of
the 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 in such cases.
CRM-M-12661-2026 (O&M)
14. In the case of 'Ismail Khan @ Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan'
Criminal 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.
15. The similar view 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.
16. In the case of 'Hasanujjaman & Ors. V/s The State of West
Bengal' SLP (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023, the benefit of bail has been accorded
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to an accused, who was found in the
possession of 115 bottles of phensedyl, by observing that:-
a) the petitioner was in custody for a period of one year and three
months;
b) the investigation in that case was complete and charge-sheet
had been filed, but charges were yet to be framed;
c) the conclusion of trial would take some time; and
d) the petitioner had no criminal antecedents.
In view of abovementioned prevailing factors, it has been
observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that there is substantial
compliance of Section-37 of NDPS Act.
17. Similarly, in the case of 'Nandlal Mondal @Abhay Mondal V/s
The State of West Bengal' SLP(Crl) No.12788/2023, the Hon'ble Supreme
CRM-M-12661-2026 (O&M)
Court of India afforded the benefit of bail to the accused, who was found in
possession of 10,000 ml of codeine phosphate, and was in custody for a
period of one and a half year, by considering that conclusion of trial would
take long time.
18. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed
in the light of above-mentioned principles of law, it transpires that:-
(i) that the petitioner has already faced incarceration for a
period of more than nine-and-a-half months;
(ii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents;
(iii) that the investigation in this case is already complete and
thus, nothing has been left to be recovered from the
possession of petitioner;
(iv) that similarly placed co-accused has already been accorded
the benefit of bail;
(v) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future;
(vi) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock up is not
likely to serve any purpose;
(vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on
bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or
influence the witnesses; and
(viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on
bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.
19. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "Dataram versus State of
Uttar Pradesh and another", 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are relevant,
wherein it has been observed that "a fundamental postulate of criminal
CRM-M-12661-2026 (O&M)
jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a
person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are
instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an
accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and
does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences.
Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of
bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a
correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an
exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been
lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being
incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our
criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or
denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but
even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large
number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the
country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying
bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the
circumstances of a case".
20. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of
India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation and Another', (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case.
In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that "the rate of conviction
in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor
weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a
negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being
CRM-M-12661-2026 (O&M)
nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to
legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which
is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial.
On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a
case of grave injustice".
21. Recently, in the case of 'Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh', 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India has observed that "if an accused is to get a final verdict after
incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then,
definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article
21 of the Constitution has been infringed". It has also been observed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that "delays are
bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and
for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the
masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides
many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed
efficiently".
22. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and
fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable,
fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated
by Hon'ble Apex court in "Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and
Another", 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.
CRM-M-12661-2026 (O&M)
23. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors,
involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a
conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the
present petition deserves to be allowed.
24. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the
case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered
to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the
satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession
shall be subject to following conditions:-
(i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts
to the Court or to any other authority;
(ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish
the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change
in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial;
and
(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission
of the trial Court.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
02.04.2026
Gaurav Thakur
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
