Gagandeep Singh Alias Gaggu Alias Hadi vs State Of Punjab
2026 Latest Caselaw 3238 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gagandeep Singh Alias Gaggu Alias Hadi vs State Of Punjab on 10 April, 2026

           CRM-M-12590--2026 (O&M)                           1




                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                           CHANDIGARH


                     (108)                                               CRM-M-12590-2026 (O&M)
                                                                         Date of decision : 10.04.2026
                                                                                                  2026

           GAGANDEEP SINGH @ GAGGU @ HADI

                                                                                          ... Petitioner

                                                           Versus
           STATE OF PUNJAB

                                                                                         ...Respondent

           CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
           Present:                 Mr.
                                     r. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate and
                                    Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner

                                    Mr. Ruchika Sabherwal, Senior DAG, Punjab

                                    ****

           MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant one is the second petition preferred by the petitioner

under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short

"BNSS") for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. No.101 dated

05.09.2023 registered under Sections 21(c), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act (for short "NDPS Act") and Section 25 of Arms

Act at Police Station Kathunangal, District Amritsar.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this

petition are that on 05.09.2023, on receipt of a ssecret ecret information to the effect

that Harpreet Singh @ Lovely, who was involved in drug smuggling with

integrity of this order/judgment.

Pakistani smugglers through drone and Raavi Raavi river and was coming in a car

make Grand i-10 10 bearing registration number number PB PB-02-EL-7922 7922 from the side of

Gurdaspur to sell heroin, a barrier was laid at the informed place by a police

party headed by SI Gopal Singh and he was apprehended while coming in the

said car. On search of the car recovery of 15 kgs. of hero heroin in was effected. On

interrogation, co--accused Harpreet Singh @ Lovely disclosed that he along with

Gagandeep Singh @ Gaggu @ Hadi Hadi (petitioner), Rahul Singh, Gagangdeep

Singh and Harpreet Singh Singh @ Happy Jatt were involved in smuggling and sale of

heroin. During ing the course of investigation, the aforesaid car was found to be

registered in the name of co-accused accused Gurwinder Singh @ Guri. He was arrested

on 29.09.2023. Some other persons were also arraigned as accused in this case.

The petitioner was arrested on 17.12.2023.

1 .12.2023. After completion of necessary

investigation and usual formalities, challan under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was

presented in the Court and presently, the petitioner along with the co-accused accused is

facing trial for commission of aforesaid mentioned offen offences. The previous

petition filed by the petitioner had been dismissed on 02.09.2025 passed by this

Court.

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

dismissal of the previous petition the trial has not progressed much as no

prosecution ecution witness has been examined so far. There are no chances of

conclusion of trial in the near future. He has been in continued detention for a

period of 02 years, 03 months and 29 days. The co co-accused accused have already been

extended benefit of bail. Each Each day spent by him in custody has furnished a new

integrity of this order/judgment.

ground to him in his favour to seek concession of bail. It is, therefore, argued

that he deserves to be extended benefit of bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the status

reportt has argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioner petitioner.. His

previous petition had been dismissed by passing a detailed order. The instant

one being a successive petition is not maintainable. He is a habitual offender

and there are chances chances of his committing similar offences, if extended benefit of

bail. 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 at considerable length.

6. The petitioner was nominated in this case on the basis of the

disclosure statement of the co-accused co accused and is alleged to be involved in

smuggling of heroin with Pakistani smugglers. The allegations against him

prima facie make out a case for commission ooff the subject offences by the

petitioner. So far as the question of maintainability of this petition being

successive one is concerned, it may be mentioned that, an accused has a right to

move successive bail application for grant of bail and it is the du duty ty of the Court,

while entertaining such a subsequent bail application, to consider that any fresh

ground which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the

earlier application is made out or not. It is also required to be noted that eve every ry

day spent by an accused in custody provides a new cause of action for filing a

bail application under certain circumstances. He cannot be kept in custody for

indefinite period and the bail application can be considered even if it is filed

integrity of this order/judgment.

repeatedly. The he denial of bail comes with a condition that the prosecution must

press for early completion of the trial. No recovery has been effected from the

petitioner. He is in custody since 17.12.2023. The trial will take considerable

time to conclude. It is well 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 436 436--

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 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 LiveLaw (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 h 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

integrity of this order/judgment.

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 mpletion of trial. In the above-mentioned 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 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) 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 accorde accorded d 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. Similar benefit has been extended in another appeal i.e. SLP

No.15699-2025 2025 titled as Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK vs. The State of West Bengal

integrity of this order/judgment.

and in the case of Pamesh Arora vs. UT Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.4872

of 2025.

11. On analyzing the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present

case in the light of the aforementioned principles of law, it transpires that the

petitioner er has suffered prolonged incarceration for a period of 02 years, 03

months and 29 days.

days. The trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as no

prosecution witness has been examined so far. 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.

12. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that a

case is made out for grant grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the

petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to

his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned

trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

13. In the eventuality of breach of any of the aforementioned

conditions, the respondent-State respondent State shall be at liberty to move an application

seeking cancellation of the bail.

14. It is, however, clarified that the obse observations rvations made above shall not

be 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.

integrity of this order/judgment.

15. Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if

any, is rendered infructuous.

                                                                    (MANISHA BATRA)
                                                                       JUDGE
           10.04.2026                     Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
           Amit Sharma                    Whether reportable:- Yes/No
integrity of this order/judgment.