[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Paramjit Singh @ Pamma vs State Of Punjab on 9 April, 2026

           CRM-M No.17991 of 2026 (O&M) 1



                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                            AT CHANDIGARH

           236                                            CRM-M No.17991 of 2026 (O&M)
                                                          Date of Decision: 09.04.2026

           Paramjit Singh @ Pamma

                                                                           ......Petitioner
                                                 Versus
           State of Punjab
                                                                           ...... Respondent

           CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

            Present:            Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                 Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.

           SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):

This is second petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under

Section 483 of the 'Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023'. This petition

pertains to a case arising out of FIR No.259 dated 09.09.2017, for the

commission of offence punishable under Sections 22 of Narcotic Drugs &

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District

Kapurthala.

2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of

this case came into being at the instance of 'ASI Dilbag Singh'. It was

reported by the above named police officer that when he was leading a team of

police officials, deputed for patrolling duty, two persons travelling in a swift

car were spotted. As per report, for the purpose of checking a signal was given

to stop the car, but the occupants of the car given by the police tried to escape.

As per above named police officer on the basis of above mentioned suspicious

CRM-M No.17991 of 2026 (O&M) 2

behaviour the car was intercepted and the search of the persons of the

occupants was conducted. As per report on search, from the possession of

petitioner 120 grams and from the possession of co-accused 'Sukhdev Singh'

110 grams of intoxicating powder (Alprazolam) had been recovered.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on recovery of above

mentioned contraband requisite formalities with regard to seizure and sealing

of contraband, slapping of FIR and formal arrest of petitioner were completed

and further investigation taken up.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr.

I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab, has appeared on behalf of respondent-State.

Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. He 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. 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.

CRM-M No.17991 of 2026 (O&M) 3

8. 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 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.

9. 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.

10. 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

CRM-M No.17991 of 2026 (O&M) 4

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.

11. 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.

12. The similar benefit has been given 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.

13. 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

CRM-M No.17991 of 2026 (O&M) 5

observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that there is substantial

compliance of Section-37 of NDPS Act.

14. 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

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.

15. 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 is already in custody for a period of more

than one year and two months;

ii) that the benefit of bail has already been accorded to the

similarly placed co-accused namely Sukhdev Singh, vide order

dated 06.12.2023 in CRM-M-60229-2023;

iii) that the investigation in this case is already complete, and

therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the

possession of petitioner;

iv) that the trial of this case is not likely to be concluded in near

future as out of seven prosecution witnesses only three have

been examined so far;

v) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to

serve any purpose;

CRM-M No.17991 of 2026 (O&M) 6

vi) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail,

the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the

witnesses;

vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail,

the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.

16. 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) 3 SCC 22, are relevant, wherein it has

been observed that "a fundamental postulate of criminal 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

CRM-M No.17991 of 2026 (O&M) 7

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".

17. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of

India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of

Investigation' (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

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".

18. 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

CRM-M No.17991 of 2026 (O&M) 8

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".

19. 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 an undertrial prisoner, as

mandated by Hon'ble Apex court in 'Balwinder Singh versus State of

Punjab and another' 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

20. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the

aforesaid factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled for the

concession of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

21. 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 abovesaid

benefit 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 from disclosing

CRM-M No.17991 of 2026 (O&M) 9

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