[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gursaran vs State Of Haryana on 27 April, 2026
CRM-M-20678-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-20678-2026
Gursaran
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...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. Rajender Pal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J :-
The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the
petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 183 dated
15.06.2024 registered under Sections 15-C and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'NDPS Act') at Police Station
Mundkati, District Palwal.
2. As per the allegations, on 15.06.2024, on the basis of a secret
information, the petitioner was apprehended and 593 kgs and 500 grams of
poppy husk was recovered from his conscious possession. He was formally
arrested. The driver of the vehicle had managed to abscond and his name came
to be known as Pappu Singh son of Karnail Singh. Investigation now stands
completed.
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 since 15.06.2024. He is an HIV patient and his medical
condition is serious. There are no chances of conclusion of trial in near future
as only 02 witnesses out of 31 prosecution witnesses have been examined so
far and that too partly. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him
in custody anymore. He is not involved in any other case of similar nature.
With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be
allowed.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that taking into
consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner
and the fact that the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are attracted in this case,
he does not deserve to be released on bail. There are chances of his absconding
or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. Therefore, it is
stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.
5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties at considerable length.
6. The well settled proposition of law is that the Court while
considering an application for grant of bail has to keep certain factors in mind,
such as, whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe
that the accused has committed the offence; circumstances which are peculiar
to the accused; likelihood of the offence being repeated; the nature and gravity
of the accusation; severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; the
danger of accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail and reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being threatened. The period of incarceration is
also relevant fact that is to be considered. It is also unequivocally established
that, to be granted bail, the accused charged with offence under the provisions
of NDPS Act must fulfill the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of the Act. A
contention has been raised that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are
attracted in the present case as there is recovery of commercial quantity of
contraband.
7. In the instant case, contraband of commercial quantity was
allegedly recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner has placed on record
Annexure P-4 report of Medical Officer of District Jail, Faridabad showing
that he is a known case of HIV and has been providing treatment. As per this
report, his general condition is stable and vitals are within normal limit. As
such, it cannot be stated that his condition is critical. However, he has
remained in custody for a period over 01 year and 10 months. Only 02 out of
31 witnesses that too partly have been examined by prosecution in this case,
obviously, chances of trial in near future are bleak. 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. 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 true that grant of bail on account of
delay in trial and long period of incarceration is to be considered in light of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the
observations made by the 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 436A
which is applicable to offences under the Act. It was also observed that the
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 bail was granted to the
accused, who had been incarcerated for a period of almost two to three years
and the trial was likely to take considerable time, 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 principle must override the statutory embargo contained under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
8. 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 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 Aadhaar card, and shall not change his mobile number(s)
during the pendency of the trial.
9. 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.
10. Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if
any, is rendered infructuous.
[MANISHA BATRA]
JUDGE
27th April, 2026
Parveen Sharma
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No
2. Whether reportable : Yes / No
