[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurbhej Singh Alias Bheja vs State Of Punjab on 23 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.16419 of 2026
Gurbhej Singh @ Bheja ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 22.04.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 23.04.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 23.04.2026
website
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or whether the full judgment is
pronounced
5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable
judgment, and reasons thereof
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. J.S. Sandhu, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab,
for the respondent-State.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. The instant one is the third petition as filed by the petitioner
under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For
short "BNSS") seeking regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.182
dated 04.11.2020 registered under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') (Sections
21(c), 23 and 29 of NDPS Act and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 added
authenticity of this order /judgment
later on) at Police Station City Jalalabad, District Fazilka. The first petition
as filed by the petitioner had been dismissed vide order dated 01.08.2022
whereas the second was dismissed as on 26.11.2024.
2. As per the allegations, on 04.11.2020, the petitioner along with
co-accused Kulwant Singh @ Kanta was found in conscious possession of
120 grams of heroin and drug money to the tune of Rs.60,000/-. The
recovered contraband and money had been taken into custody by the police.
The petitioner and the co-accused were formally arrested. The petitioner
suffered disclosure statement and in pursuance thereof, got recovered 3 Kgs
546 grams of heroin and one 12 bore pistol. Investigation now stands
concluded. The petitioner along with the co-accused is facing trial for
commission of aforementioned offences.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has
been falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery has been planted upon
him. He is in custody for a period of about 05 years, 05 months and 19 days.
Co-accused Kulwant Singh @ Kanta has been extended benefit of bail. On
parity, he too deserves to be extended the same benefit. The trial is likely to
take considerable time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by
detaining him in custody any more. Each day spent by him in custody has
given a ground afresh to him to seek concession of bail. It is, therefore,
argued that he deserves to be released on bail.
4. Per contra, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab while
relying upon the status report has argued that there are serious allegations
authenticity of this order /judgment
against the petitioner. He is a habitual offender being involved in six other
cases four of which are under the provisions of NDPS Act. There are
chances of his committing similar offences or absconding, if extended
benefit of bail. The instant one is successive petition and is not maintainable.
With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition does not deserve
to be allowed.
5. This Court has considered the rival submissions.
6. The petitioner is in custody since 04.11.2020. Nine witnesses
are yet to be examined so that the trial will take considerable 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. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the observations
authenticity of this order /judgment
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, wherein Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed 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
authenticity of this order /judgment
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
Crminal 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 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.
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 about 05
years, 05 months and 19 days, the trial is not likely to be concluded in near
authenticity of this order /judgment
future as nine 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 learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned 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 has been 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.
(MANISHA BATRA)
23.04.2026 JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
authenticity of this order /judgment
