[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harpreet Singh @ Happy vs State Of Punjab on 30 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
220
CRM-M No.14903 of 2026
Date of Decision: 30.04.2026
Harpreet Singh @ Happy ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Parminder Singh Sekhon, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Nitika Sekhon, Advocate and
Ms. Shefali, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab,
for the respondent-State.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
1. The instant one is the third petition as filed by the petitioner
under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For
short "BNSS") seeking regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.69
dated 24.04.2024 registered under Sections 22 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') at Police
Special Task Force Sector 79 Sohana, District SAS Nagar (Mohali). The
previous two petitions as filed by him, has been dismissed as withdrawn.
2. As per the allegations, on 24.04.2024, on receipt of a secret
information to the effect that the petitioner was involved in sale of
authenticity of this order /judgment
intoxicant tablets and on that very day also, he was to go to Sangrur City
from his village while carrying intoxicant tablets in huge quantity and could
be apprehended. A raiding party was formed which reached at the informed
place and apprehended the petitioner. On conducting search, 80 strips of
intoxicant tablets make Tramadol containing 800 tablets were recovered
from his conscious possession. The motorbike used by him was also taken
into custody. On interrogation, the petitioner suffered disclosure statement
admitting his involvement in the crime and further got recovered 400 tablets
of Tramadol in pursuance of the said disclosure statement which too were
taken into possession. On his disclosure, Kamaldeep Singh @ Kamal was
nominated as accused and was subsequently arrested. On his disclosure
statement, 16600 intoxicant tablets were recovered at his instance.
Investigation now stands concluded.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has
been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody for over a period of two
years. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 07 witnesses
have been examined so far. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished
a reason to him to seek concession of bail. His continued detention is not
going to serve any fruitful purpose. His antecedents are clean. It is, thus,
argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.
4. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed on record copies of recent orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in SLP (Crl.) No.2595 of 2026 titled as Chhote alias Islamuddin v. The
authenticity of this order /judgment
State of Madhya Pradesh; Criminal Appeal No.2159 of 2026 titled as
Subhasis Haldar and another v. The State of West Bengal; SLP (Crl.)
No.3135 of 2026 titled as Shivdhyan Kumar @ Mistri Yadav v. State of
Chhattisgarh and SLP (Crl.) No.2657 of 2026 titled as Sunny v. State of
NCT of Delhi.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel while placing on record status
report and custody certificate has vehemently argued that the allegations
against the petitioner are quite serious in nature. Rigors of Section 37 of
NDPS Act are attracted in this case. The trial may be expedited. The instant
one is a successive petition and hence is not maintainable. It is, therefore,
stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.
6. The petitioner is in custody since 24.04.2024. The allegations
make out a prima facie case for commission of subject offence against him.
However, only 07 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far.
Meaning thereby that trial will still take time to conclude. So far as the
maintainability of the petition is concerned, it may be mentioned that an
accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, and it is
the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a subsequent bail application,
to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail petition was
rejected. The fresh grounds which persuade the Court to take a view
different from the one taken in the earlier application are also required to be
recorded. Reference in this regard can be made to Prasad Shrikant Purohit
v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 11 SCC 458, wherein it was so observed. It
authenticity of this order /judgment
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 Live Law (SC) 533, 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, wherein Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed that rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act will not be a
authenticity of this order /judgment
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 abovementioned 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. 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
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. 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. Similar was the position in the cases as cited by
2026.04.30 17:27 learned counsel for the petitioner.
authenticity of this order /judgment
11. The previous two petitions of the petitioner was dismissed as
withdrawn on 10.01.2025 and 22.12.2025 respectively. Trial has not
progressed much thereafter. 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 about 02 years and 06 days, the trial is not
likely to be concluded in near future; 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. As such, the prolonged detention of the petitioner
amounts to drastic change in circumstances extending fresh ground to
petitioner to seek bail.
12. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner.
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 learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned, 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
authenticity of this order /judgment
pendency of the trial.
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.
(MANISHA BATRA)
30.04.2026 JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
authenticity of this order /judgment
