[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ishfaq Mugal @ Ashfaq Ahmed vs State Of Punjab on 21 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
211
CRM-M No.11418 of 2026
Date of Decision: 21.04.2026
Ishfaq Mugal alias Ashfaq Ahmed ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Tejinder Kaur, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab,
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.47 dated 17.04.2024 registered under Sections 21, 27-A
and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for
short 'NDPS Act') and Section 201 of IPC, at Police Station Sujanpur,
District Pathankot. His previous petition had been dismissed by this
Court vide order dated 22.07.2025 by making the following
authenticity of this order /judgment
observations:-
"7. Though the petitioners have been nominated in this
case on the basis of the disclosure statements suffered by
abovenamed co-accused, however, a perusal of the status
reports reveals that they were actively involved in commission
of subject crime. Huge recovery of heroin has been effected in
this case. Petitioners Tousief Hussain and Ishfaq Mugal are
alleged to have procured the heroin from Srinagar. Drug money
of Rs. 3 Lakhs has also been recovered from them. Petitioner
Jaspreet Singh facilitated the commission of crime by giving his
car to the co-accused. Not only this, he had given an amount of
Rs. 24 Lakhs to the co-accused, which was used to purchase the
recovered contraband. The allegations against the petitioners are
quite serious in nature. Some of the co-accused are still at large.
Trial is going on at a proper pace and there is nothing on record
to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of
the same. The apprehension expressed by learned State counsel
that if the petitioners are released on bail, they can abscond or
indulge in similar offences, can also not be stated to be
unfounded keeping in view the manner in which the subject
crime has been committed. Keeping in view the discussion as
made above, the quantity of recovered contraband, the quantum
of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant
facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered
opinion that the petitioners do not deserve to be granted benefit
of regular bail, at this stage. Hence, the petitions are dismissed."
2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that after
dismissal of his previous petition, a period of about nine months has passed.
2026.04.21 14:14 However, the trial has not progressed much further as only 03 out of 30
authenticity of this order /judgment
prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. There are no chance of
conclusion of trial in near future. Each day spent by him in custody has
entitled him to seek concession of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the
petition deserves to be allowed.
3. Status report has been filed. It is argued by learned Assistant
Advocate General, Punjab that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations
as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended the
benefit of bail.
4. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties.
5. Only 03 out of 30 prosecution witnesses have been examined so
far. Meaning thereby that there are no chances of conclusion of the trial in
near future. The allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of
subject offence against him. The petitioner is in custody for a period of
about 01 year, 11 months and 12 days. This factor, in the opinion of this
Court, is a ground to move for bail afresh. The Hon'ble Apex Court has
observed in a catena of cases that an accused cannot be kept in custody for
an indefinite period of time, and the bail application can be considered on its
own merits even if it is filed repeatedly. It has also been held that every day
spent in custody can provide a new cause of action for filing a bail
application under certain circumstances. This principle is a part of the
broader approach emphasizing that law prefers bail over jail, aiming to
2026.04.21 14:14 balance the rights of the accused with the requirements of the criminal
authenticity of this order /judgment
justice system. Prolonged detention itself is a ground for reconsideration of
bail since the settled principle of law is that detention prior to trial should
not become punitive. 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
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 and in such a situation,
the constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo contained
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Reliance can also be placed upon Santosh Pawar Vs. State of
authenticity of this order /judgment
Chhattishgarh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025, wherein Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. The similar benefit has been taken in another appeal i.e. SLP
2026.04.21 14:14 No.15699-2025 titled as Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK vs. The State of West
authenticity of this order /judgment
Bengal and in the case of Pamesh Arora vs. UT Chandigarh Criminal
Appeal No.4872 of 2025.
10. 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 01 year,
11 months and 12 days, the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future
as 03 out of 30 prosecution witness 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.
11. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that
a case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage.
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.
2026.04.21 14:14 12.
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)
21.04.2026 JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
authenticity of this order /judgment
