Jagdev Singh @ Jaggu vs State Of Punjab
2026 Latest Caselaw 3595 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jagdev Singh @ Jaggu vs State Of Punjab on 21 April, 2026

           CRM-M No.9197 of 2026 (O&M) 1



                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                            AT CHANDIGARH

           228                                            CRM-M No.9197 of 2026 (O&M)
                                                          Date of Decision: 21.04.2026

           Jagdev Singh @ Jaggu

                                                                           ......Petitioner
                                                 Versus
           State of Punjab
                                                                           ...... Respondent

           CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

            Present:            Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.

           SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):

This is the first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under

Section 483 of the 'Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023'. This petition

pertains to a case arising out of FIR No.30 dated 27.05.2015, for the

commission of offence punishable under Sections 21, 61, 85 of Narcotic Drugs

& Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Tarsikka District

Amritsar.

2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of

this case came into being at the instance of 'ASI Udham Singh'. According to

above named police officer on 27.05.2015 when he was leading a team of

police officials, deputed for patrolling duty, on the basis of suspicion one

person was apprehended, who disclosed his name as 'Jagdev Singh' (the

petitioner herein). According to above named police officer when search of the

body of above named person was conducted he was found in possession of 250

CRM-M No.9197 of 2026 (O&M) 2

grams of intoxicating power make 'Alprazolam'.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on recovery of above

mentioned contraband requisite formalities with regard to seizure and sealing

of contraband, slapping of FIR and formal arrest of petitioner were completed

and further investigation taken up.

4. 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.

5. Heard.

6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in

the present case the petitioner during the course of investigation was accorded

the benefit of interim bail, and thereafter, without any information to the

petitioner, the final report, along with FSL report, was filed against the

petitioner. As per learned counsel for the petitioner since the petitioner was not

aware of the above mentioned development he could not appear before the

Court and in the background of above mentioned circumstances he was

declared a proclaimed offender. As per learned counsel for the petitioner now

the petitioner is in custody since 27.12.2023, and that the trial is taking place at

a very slow pace as out of ten prosecution witnesses only one has been

examined, so far. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner except the case under Section 174-A IPC has clean

antecedents.

7. The learned State counsel has controverted the above mentioned

CRM-M No.9197 of 2026 (O&M) 3

arguments. According to learned State counsel in the present case the recovery

of contraband from the possession of petitioner comes within he ambit of

commercial quantity, and that other wise also the petitioner has already

misused the concession of bail, and that is why he was declared a proclaimed

offender. According to learned State counsel in view of past conduct of the

petitioner he is not entitled for the benefit of bail.

8 The record has been perused carefully.

9. 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.

10. 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 prolonged

incarceration generally militates against the most precious fundamental right

guaranteed under Article-21 of the Constitution, and in such a situation, the

CRM-M No.9197 of 2026 (O&M) 4

constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo contained under

Section-37 of the NDPS Act.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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

CRM-M No.9197 of 2026 (O&M) 5

period of 02 years and 08 months of the accused.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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

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.

17. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed in

CRM-M No.9197 of 2026 (O&M) 6

the light of above-mentioned principles of law, it transpires that:-

i) that the petitioner has already suffered prolonged incarceration

for being in custody for a period of more than two years, six

months and twenty eight days;

ii) that the investigation in this case is already complete, and

therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the

possession of petitioner;

iii) that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents with regard to

any prosecution under NDPS Act;

iv) that the trial of this case is not likely to be concluded in near

future as out of ten prosecution witnesses only one has been

examined, so far;

v) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to

serve any purpose;

vi) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail,

the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the

witnesses;

vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail,

the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.

18. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh

and another', (2018) 3 SCC 22, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that

CRM-M No.9197 of 2026 (O&M) 7

"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".

19. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of

India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation'

(2022) 10 SCC 51 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

CRM-M No.9197 of 2026 (O&M) 8

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".

20. 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".

21. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and

fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable,

fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

This constitutional right cannot be denied to an undertrial prisoner, as

mandated by Hon'ble Apex court in 'Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab

and another' 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

22. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the aforesaid

CRM-M No.9197 of 2026 (O&M) 9

factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled for the concession of bail,

and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

23. 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 furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the

satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, the abovesaid benefit shall be

subject to 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 from disclosing 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 shall notify the change

in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial;

and

iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission

of trial Court.

24. It is, however, made clear that any observation made hereinabove

is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have

no bearing on the merits of the case.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 21.04.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No