[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sher Singh Alias Shera vs State Of Punjab on 10 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.14284 of 2026
Sher Singh alias Shera ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 09.04.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 10.04.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 10.04.2026
website
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or whether the full judgment is
pronounced
5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable
judgment, and reasons thereof
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Randhir Singh Thind, Advocate and
Mr. Bhrigu Agnihotri, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Durgesh Garg, AAG, Punjab,
for the respondent-State.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. The instant one is the fifth petition as filed by the petitioner
under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For
authenticity of this order /judgment
short "BNSS") seeking regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.0134 dated
14.08.2021 registered under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') and Section 25 of Arms Act,
1959 at Police Station Special Task Force Phase-4, SAS Nagar, Mohali,
Punjab. Three of the petitions as previously filed by the petitioner had been
dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 30.11.2022, 20.03.2023 and
16.10.2024 respectively whereas the 4th petition bearing CRM-M-14386-
2025 had been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 02.09.2025.
2. The petitioner is facing trial for commission of aforementioned
offences on the allegations that on 14.08.2021, he was found in conscious
possession of 500 grams of heroin, 01 pistol 7.65mm with magazine
carrying 08 live cartridges and cash amount of Rs.25,15,000/- which was
drug money. He also got recovered 25 grams of heroin and gold jewellery
weighing 75.110 grams respectively.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that after
dismissal of his last previous petition, the trial has not progressed much
further as only 06 out of 36 prosecution witnesses have been examined so
far. He is suffering from neurological ailment and has not been provided
proper treatment. His condition is worsening day by day. No useful purpose
is going to be served by detaining him in custody any more. Each day spent
by him in custody has furnished a ground afresh to him to seek concession
of bail. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be released on bail.
2026.04.10 16:12 4. Per contra, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab while
authenticity of this order /judgment
relying upon the status report has argued that taking into consideration the
gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, the fact that
commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered from him and
provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act are attracted in this case coupled with
the fact that this is a successive petition without any substantive change in
the circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve to be extended benefit of
bail.
5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties.
6. The petitioner is alleged to have been found in conscious
possession of commercial quantity of contraband, some arms and
ammunitions and cash amount of Rs.25,15,000/-. He is in custody since
14.08.2021. There are no chances of conclusion of trial in near future so far
as only 06 out of 36 witnesses have been examined. His last previous
petition had been dismissed on 02.09.2025. The trial has not progressed
much thereafter. 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
2026.04.10 16:12 imperative of Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. which is applicable to offence under
authenticity of this order /judgment
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 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, wherein Hon'ble
Supreme Court 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 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
2026.04.10 16:12 Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 prolonged
authenticity of this order /judgment
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
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,
authenticity of this order /judgment
wherein it was so observed. Three of the petitions as previously filed by the
petitioner had been dismissed as withdrawn whereas the 4th petition bearing
CRM-M-14386-2025 had been dismissed by this Court vide order dated
02.09.2025. Trial has not progressed much thereafter. 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 has suffered
prolonged incarceration for a period of about 04 years, 07 months and 26
days, the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as only 06 out of
36 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
2026.04.10 16:12 hearing except when his presence has been exempted by the trial Court. He
authenticity of this order /judgment
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
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)
10.04.2026 JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
authenticity of this order /judgment
