[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhvinder Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 8 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
211
CRM-M No.8304 of 2026
Date of Decision: 08.04.2026
Sukhvinder Kumar ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Sonpreet S.Brar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana,
for the respondent-State.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
1. The present one is the second petition as filed by the
petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (for short 'BNSS') seeking concession of regular bail in case
bearing FIR No.150 dated 05.07.2024, registered under Sections 22(c)
and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for
authenticity of this order /judgment
short 'NDPS Act') at Police Station Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar. The
previous petition as filed by him bearing CRM-M-32892-2025 has been
dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2025.
2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition
are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the allegations that on
05.07.2024, a secret information was received to the effect that the petitioner
was working in a medical store near Gaba Hospital, Yamuna Nagar and was
indulged in sale of narcotic capsules. It was informed that on the same day
also, he was going to sell narcotic capsules from his house and could be
apprehended. Believing the secret information to be true, a raiding party was
formed which reached at the informed place and apprehended the petitioner.
On conducting search, 1320 narcotic capsules weighing 811.25 grams had
been recovered from his conscious possession which were taken into
possession by the police. The petitioner was formally arrested. Investigation
now stands concluded.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has
been falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery has been planted upon
him. He is in custody since long. The trial will take considerable time to
conclude. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody
any more. He has clean antecedents. Each day spent by him in custody has
furnished a new ground to seek concession of bail. It is, therefore, argued
that he deserves to be released on bail.
authenticity of this order /judgment
4. Status report has been filed. Learned Assistant Advocate
General, Haryana has argued that the petition is not maintainable as the same
is successive bail petition. The allegations against the petitioner are serious
in nature. The rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are attracted in this case. It
is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.
5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties.
6. The petitioner is in custody since 05.07.2024. The allegations
make out a prima facie case for commission of subject offence against him.
However, 03 out of 21 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far.
Meaning thereby that there are no chances of conclusion of the trial in near
future. 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
authenticity of this order /judgment
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 Live Law (SC) 533, 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 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 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 abovementioned 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
authenticity of this order /judgment
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
Crminal 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. So far as the maintainability of the petition is concerned, it may
be mentioned that an accused has a right to make successive applications for
grant of bail, and it is the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a
subsequent bail application, to consider the reasons and grounds on which
the earlier bail petition was rejected. The fresh grounds which persuade the
Court to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application
are also required to be recorded. Reference in this regard can be made to
Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 11 SCC 458,
wherein it was so observed. The first petition of the petitioner was dismissed
as withdrawn on 20.11.2025. Trial has not progressed much thereafter. On
analyzing the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case in the light
authenticity of this order /judgment
of the aforementioned principles of law, it transpires that the petitioner has
suffered prolonged incarceration for a period of about 01 year, 09 months
and 03 days, the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as only 03
out of 21 prosecution witnesses have been examined; 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. As such, the prolonged detention of
the petitioner amounts to drastic change in circumstances extending fresh
ground to petitioner to seek bail.
12. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner.
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 learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned, 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
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
Aadhaar card, and shall not change his mobile number(s) during the
pendency of the trial.
13. It is clarified that the observations made above shall not be
authenticity of this order /judgment
construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case
and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner.
(MANISHA BATRA)
08.04.2026 JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
authenticity of this order /judgment
