[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 21 April, 2026
CRM-M-18957-2026 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
249 CRM-M-18957-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision : 21.04.2026
Gurpreet Singh
..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present : Mr. Rajat Dogra, Advocate and
Ms. Nikita Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner.
.
*****
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (oral)
This petition for bail is the first petition filed by the petitioner
under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It has
been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.258 dated 03.12.2023,
for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 21, 23 and 29 of
, Police Station Gharinda,
District Amritsar.
2. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of
this case came into being on 03.12.2023 at the instance of 'SI Dharminder
Singh'. It was reported by the above-named police officer that when he was
leading a police party deputed for patrolling duty at Village Rorewal,
Amritsar, on the basis of suspicion, a person, namely Gurpreet Singh (the
CRM-M-18957-2026 (O&M)
petitioner herein), was checked and from his possession 572 gms of heroin
was recovered.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to
abovementioned recovery of contraband, requisite formalities with regard to
seizure and sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR and arrest of accused were
completed and further investigation taken up. As per prosecution, during the
course of investigation the above-named accused, namely Gurpreet Singh,
suffered a disclosure statement, wherein he nominated Harchand Singh and
Mandeep Singh @Master, as supplier of the contraband.
4. Notice of motion.
5. appears on behalf of
respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed
with. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the
petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by
the State. However, the learned State Counsel has orally opposed the present
petition.
6. Heard.
7. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner
has already faced a prolonged incarceration for being in custody for a period
of two years four months and thirteen days. According to learned counsel for
the petitioner the trial in the present case is progressing at snail's pace and
that the petitioner, with regard to offence under NDPS Act, has clean
antecedents. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner
that investigation in this case is already complete and that nothing has been
CRM-M-18957-2026 (O&M)
left to be recover from the possession of petitioner and therefore, the
petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail.
8. The learned State Counsel has controverted the above-
mentioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, since the
quantity of contraband recovered in this case comes within the ambit of
'commercial quantity', unless the twin conditions enshrined under Section-
37 of NDPS Act are satisfied, the benefit of bail should not be accorded to
the petitioner.
9. The record has been perused carefully.
10. Since the recovery of contraband in the case in hand comes
within the ambit of commercial quantity, the principles of law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Mohd. Muslim @
Hussain v. State' (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352 are relevant. In
the abovementioned case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has 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
which is applicable to offences under the Act.
11. In this regard it is also relevant to mention here that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of '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
1109, extended the benefit of bail to the accused, who had been incarcerated
for a period of almost 2-3 years and the trial was likely to take considerable
time. The above-mentioned benefit has been given by observing that
CRM-M-18957-2026 (O&M)
prolonged incarceration generally militates 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.
12. In addition to above, in a recently pronounced verdict in the
case of 'Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr.' Criminal Appeal
No.4883/2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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 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.
13. 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
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India expressed the opinion that Section 436A of
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [which requires inter alia the accused to
be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods]
would apply in such cases.
CRM-M-18957-2026 (O&M)
14. 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.
15. The similar benefit has been given 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.
16. In the case of 'Hasanujjaman & Ors. V/s The State of West
Bengal' SLP (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023, the benefit of bail has been accorded
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to an accused, who was found in the
possession of 115 bottles of phensedyl, by observing that:-
a) the petitioner was in custody for a period of one year and three
months;
b) the investigation in that case was complete and charge-sheet
had been filed, but charges were yet to be framed;
c) the conclusion of trial would take some time; and
d) the petitioner had no criminal antecedents.
In view of abovementioned prevailing factors, it has been
observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that there is substantial
compliance of Section-37 of NDPS Act.
17. Similarly, in the case of 'Nandlal Mondal @Abhay Mondal V/s
The State of West Bengal' SLP(Crl) No.12788/2023, the Hon'ble Supreme
CRM-M-18957-2026 (O&M)
Court of India afforded the benefit of bail to the accused, who was found in
possession of 10,000 ml of codeine phosphate, and was in custody for a
period of one and a half year, by considering that conclusion of trial would
take long time.
18. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed
in the light of above-mentioned principles of law, it transpires that:-
CRM-M-18957-2026 (O&M)
19. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Dataram versus State of Uttar
Pradesh and another", 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are also relevant,
wherein it has been observed that "a fundamental postulate of criminal
jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a
person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are
instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an
accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and
does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences.
Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of
bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a
correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an
exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been
lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being
incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our
criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or
denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but
even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large
number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the
country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying
bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the
circumstances of a case".
20. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of
India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of
CRM-M-18957-2026 (O&M)
Investigation and Another', ( are also relevant in this case.
In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that "the rate of conviction
in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor
weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a
negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being
nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to
legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which
is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial.
On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a
case of grave injustice".
21. Recently, in the case of 'Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh', 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India has observed that "if an accused is to get a final verdict after
incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then,
definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article
21 of the Constitution has been infringed". It has also been observed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that "delays are
bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and
for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the
masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides
many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed
efficiently".
22. Therefore, to elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the
basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of
CRM-M-18957-2026 (O&M)
reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the
accused as mandated by Hon'ble Apex court in "Balwinder Singh versus
State of Punjab and Another", 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.
23. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors,
involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a
conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the
present petition deserves to be allowed.
24. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the
case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered
to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to
the satisfaction of learned trial Court, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts
to the Court or to any other authority.
(ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish
the address to the Court concerned and
, till the final decision of the trial;
and
(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission
of the trial Court.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
21.04.2026
Vinod
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
