Satnam Singh vs State Of Punjab
2026 Latest Caselaw 3620 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Satnam Singh vs State Of Punjab on 22 April, 2026

           CRM-M-4013-2026                    1




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                            AT CHANDIGARH


           211                                            CRM-M-4013-2026
                                                          Date of decision: 22.04.2026



            SATNAM SINGH

                                                                                  ......PETITIONER

                                                              Versus



            STATE OF PUNJAB
                                                                               ..... RESPONDENT



           CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

            Present:            Ms. Amarjot Kaur, Advocate
                                for the petitioner.

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

                                      *****


           SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1. This petition for bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner

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

petition has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.0011 dated

09.03.2024 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 21(c)-61-

85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Sections 25-

54-59 of Arms Act, 1959 [Sections 27-A, 29-61-85 of NDPS Act, 1985,

Sections 54 and 59 of Arms Act, Sections 10, 11, 12 of Aircraft Act and

Section 52 of Prison Act added later on], Police Station Dorangla, District

Gurdaspur.

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

this case came into being at the instance of Sub Inspector Davinder Kumar,

who had reported that on 09.03.2024 when he was on patrolling duty

alongwith other police officials, a car bearing registration No.PB-02-CP-7100

was intercepted on the basis of secret information, at the barricade set up by

the police party. According to above-named police officer the occupants of the

car were 'Satnam Singh' (the petitioner herein) and 'Gurjeet Singh @ Kaalu'.

The above-named police officer further reported that when the search of the

car was carried out, 405 grams of 'Heroin' alongwith drone was recovered.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of

above-mentioned contraband, requisite formalities with regard to seizure and

sealing of contraband, filing of FIR and formal arrest of the accused were

completed, and thereafter, further investigation taken up.

4. Heard.

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

petitioner has already suffered a prolonged incarceration for being in custody

for a period of more than two years and one month. According to learned

counsel for the petitioner the trial is taking place at a snail's pace, as out of

twenty three prosecution only six witness have been examined so far and

remaining seventeen are yet to be examined. It has also been contended by

learned counsel for the petitioner that although there are three other cases

pending against the petitioner, but in all the above-mentioned three cases

nothing was recovered from the possession of petitioner and in all the above-

mentioned three cases, the petitioner, was implicated after arrest in the present

case, on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused.

6. The learned State counsel has controverted the above-mentioned

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

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

commercial quantity and therefore, without satisfying the rigors of Section 37

of NDPS Act, the petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail.

7. The record has been perused carefully.

8. Since the quantity of contraband recovered in the present case

comes within the ambit of commercial quantity the principles related to

recovery of commercial quantity of contraband under NDPS Act, are laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 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.

9. 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

constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo contained under

Section-37 of the NDPS Act.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. The similar benefit has been taken 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

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

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 and one month;

ii) that the investigation in this case is already complete, and nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

iii) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, as out of twenty three prosecution witnesses, seventeen are yet to be examined;

iv) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future;

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

17. 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

"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".

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

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

and Another' (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 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".

19. 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".

20. 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 the accused as mandated by

Hon'ble Apex court in "Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another",

2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

21. 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.

22. 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 concession 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 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 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 the trial Court.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE

22.04.2026 vipin Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No