[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharampreet Singh Alias Dhammi vs State Of Punjab on 27 April, 2026
CRM-M-6103-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-6103-2026 (O&M)
Dharampreet Singh @ Dhammi ...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. A. S. Brar, 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. 42 dated 13.03.2024, registered
under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') at Police Station City Moga, District Moga. His
previous petition was dismissed by this Court on 08.09.2025.
2. The petitioner along with co-accused has been facing trial in the
aforementioned case on the allegations that on 13.03.2024, they were found to
CRM-M-6103-2026 (O&M) -2-
be in conscious possession of 5.5 kg of heroin.
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
and co-accused. He is in custody for a period of more than two years. 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 only four out of twenty
prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Trial has also not
progressed since the date of dismissal of his previous petition. The extended
period of his incarceration is a sufficient and new ground to seek concession
of bail to him. He has clean antecedents. 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 has 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 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 along with the co-accused is alleged to be found in
conscious possession of commercial quantity of contraband on 13.03.2024.
He is in custody since that very day and has spent a period of more than two
years in custody. Obviously the trial is likely to take time to conclude. This
CRM-M-6103-2026 (O&M) -3-
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 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
CRM-M-6103-2026 (O&M) -4-
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 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. Hon'ble
Supreme 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
CRM-M-6103-2026 (O&M) -5-
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 for a period of more than two
years, the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; 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 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.
CRM-M-6103-2026 (O&M) -6-
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.
27.04.02026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
