[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanchit Narang vs State Of Haryana on 21 April, 2026
CRM-M-1273-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-1273-2026
Sanchit Narang
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
Sr. No. Particulars Details
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 20.04.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 21.04.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 21.04.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full
4 Full
judgment is pronounced
The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not
5
reasons thereof applicable
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J :-
The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the
petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 141 dated
05.03.2024 registered under Sections 21(c) and 22(c) and Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'NDPS Act')(Section 29 of
NDPS Act was added later on) at Police Station Sector 32-33, Karnal, District
Karnal.
2. As per the allegations, the petitioner was apprehended on the
basis of a secret information on 05.03.2024 and recovery of 2145 tablets of
Alprazolam, 1280 tablets of Lotomil and 808 capsules of Tramadol was
effected from his house. He was arrested on 05.03.2024. On his disclosure
statement, the co-accused was nominated and was arrested. Presently, he is
facing trial for aforementioned offences. First petition filed by him had been
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.10.2024, whereas second petition
bearing CRM-M No.-19116-2025 filed by him, had been dismissed vide order
dated 29.08.2025.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been
falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody for a period of about 02 years
and 02 months. It is further argued that ever since dismissal of the previous
petition as filed by him, trial has not progressed further and only 05 witness
have been examined so far. Each day spent by him in custody has given rise
to a fresh cause of action for seeking bail. It is, therefore, argued that the
petition deserves to be allowed.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the status
report has vehemently argued that the petition is not maintainable as the same
is successive petition. The previous petitions have already been dismissed and
there is no drastic or substantive change in the circumstances. The rigors of
Section 37 of NDPS Act are attracted in this case. Therefore, it is stressed 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 is in custody since 05.03.2024. The allegations
make out a prima facie case for commission of subject offence against him.
However, only 05 out of 16 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 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
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 question of 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 21.10.2024 and the second petition was dismissed on
29.08.2025. 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 02 years and 02 months, the trial
is not likely to be concluded in near future as only 05 out of 16 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 extent of two sureties in
the like amount each, 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
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.
14. Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending
application, if any, is rendered infructuous.
[MANISHA BATRA]
JUDGE
21st April, 2026
Parveen Sharma
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No
2. Whether reportable : Yes / No
