[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Dalbir Singh vs State Of Punjab on 8 April, 2026

                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                                    AT CHANDIGARH


                         226
                                                                    CRM-M No.17569 of 2026
                                                                    Date of Decision: 08.04.2026


                         Dalbir Singh                                                  ... Petitioner

                                                       Versus

                         State of Punjab                                               ... Respondent

                         CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

                         Present:          Mr. Vipul Jindal, Advocate and
                                           Mr. Vishal Khatri, Advocate,
                                           for the petitioner.

                                           Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab,
                                           for the respondent-State.

                                                 ***

                         MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The instant one is the second petition as filed by the

petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

2023 (For short "BNSS") seeking regular bail in case arising out of FIR

No.224 dated 25.12.2022 registered under Sections 21, 23 and 29 of

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

Act') and Sections 10, 11 and 12 of Aircraft Act, 1934 at Police Station

Gharinda, District Amritsar Rural. The previous petition as filed by him,

has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.11.2024.

2. As per the allegations, on 25.12.2022, on receipt of a secret

authenticity of this order /judgment

information to the effect that the present petitioner along with his brother

Jagdish Singh was involved in smuggling of contraband from cross border in

connivance with Pakistani smugglers and by smuggling heroin through

drone from Pakistan and by supplying it further. It was also informed that on

that very day also, they were roaming in the vicinity of Village Dhanoi

Khurd via Dhanoi Kalan in their Breeza car and could be apprehended with

contraband. Believing the secret information to be true, a raiding party was

formed which reached at the informed place and recovered 10 Kgs. of heroin

and one drone from the conscious possession of the petitioner and co-

accused. They were formally arrested. Investigation now stands completed.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has

been in custody since 25.12.2022. He has been falsely implicated in this

case. He is suffering from medical ailments. He has remained admitted in

hospital for one month during his custody. His medical condition is getting

worse day by day. He had undergone testicular cancer surgery in the year

2021. The mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with at

the time of alleged recovery. No recovery has been effected from conscious

possession. A false recovery has been planted. There are no chances of

conclusion of trial in near future as none out of 16 prosecution witnesses has

been examined so far despite the fact that he has been in prolonged

incarceration for a period of more than 03 years and 03 months. His

prolonged incarceration militates against his fundamental right guaranteed

authenticity of this order /judgment

under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. As such, it is urged that he

deserves to be released on bail.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab has advance notice of the

petition and is ready to argue the matter. She has placed on record custody

certificate. She has vehemently argued that keeping in view the gravity of

the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, the recovery of huge

quantity of contraband effected from the conscious possession of the

petitioner as well as the co-accused and the fact that rigors of Section 37 of

NDPS Act are attracted in this case, the petitioner does not deserve to be

extended benefit of bail.

6. This Court has considered the rival submissions.

7. The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have been

found in conscious possession of commercial quantity of contraband. The

allegations prima facie make out a case for commission of aforementioned

offences as against the petitioner. Now he has been in custody for a period of

more than 03 years and 03 months. Not even a single witness has been

examined so far and, therefore, chances of conclusion of trial in near future

are obviously bleak. This factor, in the opinion of this Court, is a ground to

move for bail afresh. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in a catena of

cases that an accused cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period of

time, and the bail application can be considered on its own merits even if it

authenticity of this order /judgment

is filed repeatedly. It has also been held that every day spent in custody can

provide a new cause of action for filing a bail application under certain

circumstances. This principle is a part of the broader approach emphasizing

that law prefers bail over jail, aiming to balance the rights of the accused

with the requirements of the criminal justice system. Prolonged detention

itself is a ground for reconsideration of bail since the settled principle of law

is that detention prior to trial should not become punitive. 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 Rabi 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

authenticity of this order /judgment

for a long period by observing that prolonged incarceration militated against

the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India and in such a situation, the constitutional principles

must override the statutory embargo contained under Section 37 of the

NDPS Act.

8. Reliance can also be placed upon Santosh Pawar Vs. State of

Chhattishgarh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025, which is a 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 above-mentioned case the

Hon'ble Supreme Court 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.

9. 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, 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.

authenticity of this order /judgment 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 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.

11. The similar benefit has been extended 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.

12. On analysing 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 more than 03

years and 03 months and the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future

as not even a single witness been examined. The co-accused Jagdish whose

case is on similar footing has been extended benefit of bail. On parity, the

petitioner too deserves to be given the same benefit. The further 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 or indulge in similar offences.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be

admitted to bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds as well as surety

bonds by two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned

trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned and on the following

conditions:-

authenticity of this order /judgment

(i) He 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/her from

disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.

(ii) He shall not leave the country under any circumstance

without permission of the learned trial Court.

(iii) He shall appear before the trial Court on each and

every date fixed, unless is exempted by specific order of

the Court.

(iv) he shall provide his permanent address as well as

present address before the learned trial Court at the time

of furnishing of bonds and shall not change the same

without informing the trial Court.

(v) He shall also give copy of his Aadhar Card, PAN

Card if any and details of his mobile phone number(s) to

the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds

and in case, any change in his mobile phone number takes

place, then he shall inform about the same to the learned

trial Court in advance and shall keep his mobile phone

switch on all times.