[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satnam Singh vs State Of Punjab on 27 April, 2026
CRM-M-34821-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-34821-2025 (O&M)
Satnam Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
Sr. No. Particulars Details
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 23.04.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 27.04.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 27.04.2026
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. Vipul Jindal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023,
is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 34 dated
10.06.2024, registered under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') and Section
25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station State Special Operation Cell,
Amritsar.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present
petition are that on 10.06.2024, on the basis of a secret information, co-
CRM-M-34821-2025 (O&M) -2-
accused Gursahib Singh and Sajan Singh, while coming in a car bearing
registration number PB-02-AZ-8550, were apprehended by a police party
headed by Inspector Inderdeep Singh and recovery of 7.5 kgs. of heroin and
16 live cartridges of .30 bore was effected from them. They were formally
arrested at spot. During the course of investigation, some other persons
including petitioner Satnam Singh were also nominated. The petitioner was
arrested in this case on 11.06.2024 and recovery of 500 grams of heroin and
a pistol of .30 bore loaded with 10 live cartridges was effected from him. On
interrogation, he disclosed that he used to receive consignments of heroin
and arms/ammunition from co-accused Gursahib Singh and other
unidentified persons and as per directions of Rajwinder Singh @ Raju, he
used to deliver the said consignments to one Jagmohan Singh @ Jagga and
Sukhwinder Singh. On the basis of the same, the abovenamed persons were
also nominated in this case and subsequently arrested. After completion of
necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan was presented in the
Court and presently, the petitioner along with the co-accused is facing trial
for commission of aforesaid mentioned offences.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has
been falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery was planted upon him.
He is in custody since 11.06.2024. Investigation has since been completed
and challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial is likely to take time as only
02 out of total 25 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. His
prolonged detention entitles him to seek bail. No useful purpose would be
served by keeping him in custody anymore. His involvement in other cases
cannot be made a ground for denying him the benefit of bail in the given
CRM-M-34821-2025 (O&M) -3-
circumstances. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed
and the petitioner deserves to be granted benefit of regular bail.
4. Status report and the custody certificate have been filed by the
respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the
gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, his criminal
antecedents as well as the fact that commercial quantity of the contraband
was recovered from him, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail as rigors of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted against him. The petitioner
may abscond or involve in committing similar offences again, if extended
benefit of bail. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. This Court has heard the rival submissions.
6. As per the allegations, the petitioner was firstly nominated by
the abovenamed co-accused as their accomplice and subsequently, on his
arrest, recovery of 500 grams of heroin was effected from him. Though, the
allegations prima facie make out a case for commission of subject offences
against the petitioner, however, on a perusal of the record, it is apparent that
there are no chances of conclusion of the trial in near future and it will take
considerable time as most of the prosecution witnesses are yet to be
examined. The petitioner has remained in custody since long. 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 of bail
on account of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered under Section
CRM-M-34821-2025 (O&M) -4-
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 of India 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
CRM-M-34821-2025 (O&M) -5-
incarceration 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 analysing 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 01 year, 10
months and 06 days and the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future
as only 02 out of total 25 witnesses have been examined. Pendency of other
cases against him cannot be considered to be a reason to deny him benefit of
bail in the given circumstances. In view thereof, this Court is of the
considered opinion that 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
CRM-M-34821-2025 (O&M) -6-
or indulge in similar offences. 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 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 has been exempted by the trial Court. He shall
surrender his passport, if any, furnish details of his cell phone and Aadhar
card, and shall not change his mobile number(s) during the pendency of the
trial.
12. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only
for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no
bearing on the merits of the case.
27.04.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
