Gulab Khan @ Ashu vs State Of Punjab
2026 Latest Caselaw 3980 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gulab Khan @ Ashu vs State Of Punjab on 30 April, 2026

           CRM-M-10618--2026 (O&M)                           1




                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                           CHANDIGARH
           (216)                                        CRM-M-10618-2026 (O&M)
                                                                                  2026
                                                         Date of decision : 30.04.2026

           GULAB KHAN @ ASHU
                                                                                          ...
                                                                                           .. Petitioner

                                                           Versus
           STATE OF PUNJAB

                                                                                         ...Respondent

           CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
           Present:                 Mr. Iqbal Singh Mann, Advocate for the petitioner

                                    Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab

                                    ***

           MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant one is the second 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.162 162 dated 19.10.2022

registered under Section 22C of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

Act (for short "NDPS Act) at Police Station Kabarwala, District Sri Muktsar

Sahib. The previous petition bearing CRM-M-47565 CRM 47565-2023 2023 had been dismissed

by this Court vide order dated 14.01.2025.

2. As per the allegations, the petitioner along with cco-accused was

found in conscious possession of commercial commercial quantity of contraband,

namely,Tramado ol Hydrochloride on 19.10.2022, 9.10.2022, which was taken into custody.

The petitioner along with co-accused co d is presently facing trial for commission of

integrity of this order/judgment.

the aforementioned ned offences.

offences. His previous petition had been dismissed vide

order dated 14.01.2025 14.01 by this Court by passing following order :

"As per the allegations, the petitioners were apprehended by the

police party on 19.10.2022 and recovery of 3500 tablets of

Tramadol Hydrochloride was effected from petitioner Amandeep Tramadol

Singh alias Amna, whereas 3000 of the same salt were recovered

from petitioner Gulab Khan @ Ashu. The quantity of the recovered

contraband obviously falls under the commercial quantity. Hence,

the rigors rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would certainly be

attracted against the petitioners. As regards the arguments

advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to non non--

compliance of the statutory provisions of the NDPS Act during

investigation by by the police party, the same have direct bearing on

the merits of the case, which cannot be looked into at this stage

while deciding a bail petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

There is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue

delay in in conclusion of trial. Since the petitioners are shown to be

having criminal antecedents, the apprehension expressed by

learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab that the petitioners, if

extended benefit of bail, may abscond or indulge in similar offences

can an also not be stated to be unfounded. Keeping in view the

discussion as made above, the quantity of recovered contraband,

the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the

attendant facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the

integrity of this order/judgment.

considered opinion that the petitioners do not deserve to be granted

benefit of regular bail, at this stage. Hence, the petitions are

dismissed."

3. It is argued by learned counsel counsel for the petitioner that ever since the

dismissal of the previous petition petiti for grant of regular bail as filed by the

petitioner, the trial has not progressed much since only 02 prosecution witnesses

have been produced and those too have been examined examined-in-chief chief only and have

not appeared for their cross-examination.

cross examination. There are no chances of cconclusion onclusion of

the trial in near future. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to

be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him.

him. He is in custody since 19.10.2022..

Prolonged incarceration of the petitioner without any possibility of conclusion of

trial in near future is against the fundamental right of liberty enshrined under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Each day spent by him in custody has

furnished a new ground to him to seek benefit of bail afresh. With these broad

submissions, itt is argued that he deserves to be extended the benefit of bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the petition is not

maintainable as the previous petition as filed by the petitioner, has been

dismissed by passing a detailed order and this is a successive bail petition. There

is no drastic or substantive change in the circumstances. Rigors of Section 37 of

the NDPS Act are attracted in this case. The trial may be expedited. Hence, it is,

stressed that he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail.

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties at considerable length.

integrity of this order/judgment.

6. The petitioner was apprehended by the police party and commercial

quantity of contraband had 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, it 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

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 provi provides des 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 th that at the

prosecution must press for early completion of the trial. No recovery has been

effected from the petitioner. He has clean antecedents. He is in custody since

19.10.2022.

.10.2022. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. It is well settled

proposition osition 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 of Cr.P.C. which ch is applicable to offence under

the Act. It was also observed that jails are overcrowded and their living

integrity of this order/judgment.

conditions are, more often than not, appalling. The danger of unjustified

imprisonment is that inmates are more likely to be hardened rather than

reformed.

formed. 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,

wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had 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, tthe he 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 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 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 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

integrity of this order/judgment.

considered the correct approach towards bail, with 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 Procedu Procedure re 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 accorded the benefit

of bail to the accused cused 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 incarceration for a period of 03 years, 06

months and 07 days. The trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as

only 02 out of 12 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The

continued detention of the petitioner is not likely to serve any fru fruitful itful purpose.

There is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not

participate in the trial or will abscond.

integrity of this order/judgment.

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.

13. In the eventuality of breach of any of 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 Court 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.

                            infr

                                                                    (MANISHA BATRA)
                                                                       JUDGE
           30.04.2026                     Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
           Amit Sharma                    Whether reportable:- Yes/No
integrity of this order/judgment.