[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Daler Singh @ Dalera vs State Of Punjab on 21 April, 2026
CRM-M-12549-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
212 CRM-M-12549-2026
Date of decision: 21st April, 2026
Daler Singh @ Dalera
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. P.B.S. Goraya, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-
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. 122 dated
20.09.2024 registered under Section 21-C of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'NDPS Act') and Sections 10, 11 and 12 of
Aircraft Act, 1934 (added vide DDR No. 23 dated 13.05.2025) at Police
Station Khalra, District Tarn Taran.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present
petition are that on 20.09.2024, a secret information was received by Sub
Inspector Lakhbir Singh to the effect that two youths would get some
intoxicating substance dropped near the defence drain by a drone from
Pakistan. The police party reached at the informed place and found a packet
lying on the ground, which was wrapped with a yellow coloured cloth. The
said packet was opened and it was found containing heroin, which weighed
as 02 kgs. 508 grams. Accordingly, the present FIR was registered and
investigation proceedings were initiated. During the course of investigation,
the petitioner was arrested on 11.12.2024. On interrogation, the petitioner
admitted his involvement in the crime by saying that he had got dropped the
recovered contraband through a drone from Pakistani smugglers but could not
collect the same due to patrolling of police and BSF personnel. On his
disclosure, Malkit Singh and Sukhdeep Singh @ Sukha were nominated as
additional accused and were arrested subsequently.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been
falsely implicated in this case. He was not named in the FIR and it was only
on the basis of some secret information which cannot be considered to be
legally admissible in evidence, that he was nominated as such. The disclosure
statement allegedly suffered by him cannot be stated to be legally admissible.
The alleged recovery was effected from an open place and not at his instance.
No recovery has been effected from him. He is in custody for a period of over
01 year and 04 months. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as
only 01 out of 25 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. The rigors
of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not attracted qua him. His involvement in other
cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him.
With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be
allowed.
4. Status report and custody certificate have been filed by
respondent-State. It is argued by her that taking into consideration the gravity
of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, the fact that the
commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the spot, the petitioner
does not deserve to be released on bail. There are chances of his absconding
or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. 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 alleged to have been involved in smuggling of
contraband from the cross border country and is further alleged to have
arranged to get commercial quantity of heroin dropped in some open fields.
The contraband was recovered from the open fields. As such, it is a debatable
question as to whether the recovery has to be considered to be effected from
the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is in continuous
custody w.e.f. 11.12.2024. He is not required for further investigation. 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.
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 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 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.
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 of India, 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
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.
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. 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 01 year, 04
months and 06 days, the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as
most of the prosecution witnesses are yet to be 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.
12. 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 the
learned trial Court, 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 is 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 decided, 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
