[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jobanpreet Singh @ Joban vs State Of Punjab on 8 April, 2026
CRM-M-17751-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
230
CRM-M-17751-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 08.04.2026
Jobanpreet Singh @ Joban ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Ranjodh Singh Sidhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
1. The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the
petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
for grant of regular bail to him in case bearing FIR No. 44 dated 21.06.2024,
registered under Sections 21(C), 27-A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') at Police Station
Sarai Amanat Khan, District Tarn Taran. His previous petition was
dismissed as withdrawn on 15.12.2025.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present
petition are that on 21.06.2024, the petitioner and co-accused Dilpreet Singh
@ Dil were apprehended by a police party, while they were coming on a
motorcycle and recovery of 375 grams of heroin was effected from them.
Since they could not produce any valid license or permit to keep in their
possession the recovered contraband, they were formally arrested at the spot.
CRM-M-17751-2026 (O&M) -2-
They suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the
subject offences and also disclosed that the recovered contraband was
supplied to them by one Varinder Singh, who was also nominated in this
case as an accused. Some other persons were also nominated in this case and
recovery of 22 grams of heroin was further effected at the instance of co-
accused Joni Singh. Investigation now stands completed and challan has
been filed.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has
been falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery was planted upon him.
He is in custody since 21.06.2024. Investigation has since been completed
and challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial is likely to take time as no
prosecution witness has been examined so far out of total 24 witnesses. His
prolonged detention entitles him to seek bail. No useful purpose would be
served by keeping him in custody anymore. Similarly situated co-accused
Dilpreet Singh @ Dil has already been granted concession of regular bail by
this Court, vide order dated 11.03.2026 passed in CRM-M-55589-2025. On
parity, the petitioner too deserves to be given the same benefit. Therefore, it
is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves
to be granted benefit of regular bail.
4. Custody certificate has been filed by the respondent-State.
Learned State counsel, who has advance notice of the petition and is ready to
argue the matter, has submitted that keeping in view the gravity of the
allegations levelled against the petitioner as well as the fact that commercial
quantity of contraband had been recovered from him, he is not entitled to get
benefit of bail as rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted
CRM-M-17751-2026 (O&M) -3-
against him. The petitioner may abscond or involve in committing similar
offences again, if extended benefit of bail. Hence, it is urged that the petition
is liable to be dismissed.
5. This Court has heard the rival submissions.
6. As per the allegations, the petitioner along with the co-accused
was found in conscious possession of commercial quantity of the contraband
on 21.06.2024. Though, the allegations prima facie make out a case for
commission of subject offences against the petitioner, however, on a perusal
of the record, it is apparent that there are no chances of conclusion of the
trial in near future and it will take considerable time as no prosecution
witness has been examined so far. The petitioner has remained in custody
since long. Co-accused has already been granted concession of regular bail
by this Court, as mentioned above. 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
CRM-M-17751-2026 (O&M) -4-
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 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. In the case of Ismail Khan @ Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan
CRM-M-17751-2026 (O&M) -5-
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.
10. 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.
11. 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, the trial is not likely to be
concluded in near future as no prosecution witness out of total 24 has been
examined so far, co-accused has already been granted concession of regular
bail. These facts weigh in favour of the petitioner for grant of bail. Each day
spent by an accused in custody provides a new cause of action for filing a
bail application under certain circumstances. In view thereof, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the 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 released on bail on his furnishing personal
as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, and
subject to the condition that he shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the
case. He shall appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date of
CRM-M-17751-2026 (O&M) -6-
hearing except when his presence has been exempted by the trial Court. He
shall surrender his passport, if any, furnish details of his cell phone and
Aadhar card, and shall not change his mobile number(s) during the pendency
of the trial.
12. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only
for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no
bearing on the merits of the case.
08.04.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
