[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder vs State Of Haryana on 27 April, 2026
CRM-M-15642--2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(214) CRM-M-15642-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision : 27.04.2026
2026
RAVINDER
...
.. Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Rajesh Tushar, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana
****
MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)
1. The instant one is the third petition filed by the petitioner under
Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS")
for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.
No.301
301 dated 01.08.2024
registered under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act
(for short "NDPS Act") at Police Station Ladwa,
Ladwa, District Kurukshetra. Previous
two petitions as filed by him had been dismissed as withdrawn.
2. As per the allegations, on 01.08.2024, 01 kg and 10 grams of charas
was recovered from the conscious possession
possession of the present petitioner and the
co-accused,
accused, who were formally arrested and are in custody since then.
integrity of this order/judgment.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been
a change in the circumstances as the co-accused
co accused Ajay against whom similar
allegations were levelled has since been extended benefit of bail. It is stressed
that on parity, he too deserves to be extended the same benefit. It is also argued
that each day spent by him in custody has furnished a new ground in his favour
to make prayer
rayer for grant of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves
to be allowed.
4. Status report and custody certificate have been filed by learned
State counsel. It is argued by learned State counsel that the petition is a
successive petition
on and is not maintainable. There is a call detail record between
the petitioner and the co-accused
co accused Pale Khan showing that the petitioner who was
the supplier of the contraband had an active complicity in the crime. The trial
may be expedited. It is, therefore,
therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be
allowed.
5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by the parties at
considerable length.
6. The petitioner was apprehended by the police party and commercial
quantity of contraband had been
been recovered from his conscious possession. The
allegations against him prima facie make out a case for commission of the
subject offences by the petitioner. So far as the question of maintainability of
this petition being successive one is concerned, iitt may be mentioned that, an
accused has a right to move successive bail application for grant of bail and it is
the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a subsequent bail application, to
integrity of this order/judgment.
consider that any fresh ground which persuade it to take a view different from
the one taken in the earlier application is made out or not. It is also required to
be noted that every day spent by an accused in custody provides a new cause of
action for filing a bail application under certain circumstances. He cannot be
kept in custody for indefinite period and the bail application can be considered
even if it is filed repeatedly. The denial of bail comes with a condition that the
prosecution must press for early completion of the trial. The petitioner is in
custody since 03.08.2024. Similarly situated co-accused
accused has been extended
benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended benefit of bail. Even
otherwise only
nly 01 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. There are no
chances of conclusion of trial in the near future. 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 37 of the NDPS Act, given
the imperative of Section 436-A
436 A of Cr.P.C. which is applicable to offence under
the Act. It was also observed that
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 LiveLaw (SC) 533,
integrity of this order/judgment.
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had extended benefit of bail to the accused
who had been incarcerated
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 rigors of Sectio
Sectionn
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
above mentioned case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that appellant who
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
reau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 prolonged incarceration
v. Central Bureau
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.
integrity of this order/judgment.
9. In the case of Ismail Khan @ Path
Pathan
an 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 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. Similar benefit has been extended in another appeal i.e. SLP
No.15699-2025
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 01 year, 08
months and 23 days. The trial
trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as
only 01 out of 14 prosecution witnesses hass been examined so far. 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 subject to
his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned
trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.
integrity of this order/judgment.
13. In the eventuality of breach of any ooff the aforementioned
conditions, the respondent-State
respondent State shall be at liberty to move an application
seeking cancellation of the bail.
14. It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not
be construed as an expression of opinion of this C
Court
ourt on the merits of the case
and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner.
15. Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if
any, is rendered infructuous.
(MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
27.04.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No
integrity of this order/judgment.
