[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi vs State Of Punjab on 23 April, 2026
CRM-M-15440-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-15440-2026 (O&M)
Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
Sr. No. Particulars Details
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 21.04.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 23.04.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 23.04.2026
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. R. K. Kachura, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the
petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for
grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 86 dated 21.07.2024, registered
under Section 21(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') [Section 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 25 of the
Arms Act added later on] at Police Station Sultanwind, District Amritsar. The
previous petition was dismissed by this Court on 03.02.2026.
2. As per the allegations, on 21.07.2024, on the basis of a secret
CRM-M-15440-2026 (O&M) -2-
information to the effect that the present petitioner was indulged in business of
selling contraband and had come to Amritsar to supply a consignment of heroin
and could be apprehended from the Gurudwara Baba Gulab area where he was
waiting for some customers of the contraband, a raiding party was immediately
formed. Intimation was sent to the police station for registration of FIR. The
petitioner was apprehended and 500 grams of heroin was recovered from his
conscious possession. He suffered disclosure statement on the basis of which
Kuljinder Singh was nominated as co-accused. He was arrested on 22.07.2024.
Recovery of one illegal pistol and two live cartridges was effected form him.
Some other persons were also nominated as accused in this case. Investigation
now stands completed.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been
falsely implicated in this case and a false recovery has been planted upon him.
He is in custody for a period of about than 01 year, 09 months. He has clean
antecedents. There is prolonged pendency of the trial in the present case, and
there is no likelihood of its conclusion in the near future, particularly as no
prosecution witness out of total 25 witnesses has been examined so far. The
extended period of his incarceration is a sufficient and new ground to seek
concession of bail to him. His continued detention would not serve any useful
purpose. 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 learned State counsel that taking into consideration the
gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner as well as the fact that
commercial quantity of the contraband was recovered from him, he does not
CRM-M-15440-2026 (O&M) -3-
deserve to be released on bail. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not
deserve to be allowed.
5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable
length.
6. The petitioner is alleged to be found in conscious possession of
commercial quantity of contraband on 21.07.2024. He is in custody since that
very day and has spent a period of about 01 year and 09 months in custody.
Obviously the trial is likely to take time to conclude. This factor, in the opinion
of this Court, is a ground to move for bail afresh. The Hon'ble Apex Court has
observed in a catena of cases that an accused cannot be kept in custody for an
indefinite period of time, and the bail application can be considered on its own
merits even if it is filed repeatedly. It has also been held that every day spent in
custody can provide a new cause of action for filing a bail application under
certain circumstances. This principle is a part of the broader approach
emphasizing that law prefers bail over jail, aiming to balance the rights of the
accused with the requirements of the criminal justice system. Prolonged
detention itself is a ground for reconsideration of bail since the settled principle
of law is that detention prior to trial should not become punitive. 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. 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
CRM-M-15440-2026 (O&M) -4-
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
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
CRM-M-15440-2026 (O&M) -5-
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
Criminal 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. 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, the trial is not likely to be
concluded in near future as none out of total 25 prosecution witnesses has been
examined so far; he has clean antecedents, 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
CRM-M-15440-2026 (O&M) -6-
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.
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.
23.04.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
