[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jarmanjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 12 February, 2026
250
CRM-M-4554-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-4554-2026
Date of decision: 12.02.2026
JARMANJIT SINGH ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
Present:- Mr. Karan Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasdeep Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
.....
RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in case FIR No.232 dated 16.12.2023, registered under Sections 21-
C, 27-A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985,
at Police Station Dinanagar, District Gurdaspur.
2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 16.12.2023, SI
Daljit Singh along with his fellow police officials had set up a Naka and on
suspicion apprehended the petitioner and co-accused, who were travelling in a
car and 1.5 kg of heroin alongwith Rs.1,00,000/- drug money was recovered
from dashboard of car. Hence the present FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the
said offence. He further contends that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act
were not complied with at the time of alleged search and seizure. He further
contends that the recovery of alleged contraband has already been effected
from the petitioner as well as co-accused and nothing more is to be recovered.
1 of 5
The petitioner is in custody since 16.12.2023. The investigation in the case is
complete, challan stands presented; charges have also been framed and out of
18 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. He submits that
co-accused Jaspreet Singh and Sonam Kaur have already been granted
concession of regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 09.12.2025 and
22.12.2025 in CRM-M-35129-2024 and CRM-M-60979-2025 respectively.
He further submits that the trial will take a long time to conclude and no
useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars.
Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody
certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. He has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed
by the petitioner is serious in nature and that he alongwith other co-accused
was apprehended at the spot with the alleged contraband, which falls under
the commercial quantity. He has further submitted that the petitioner is also
involved in multiple other cases meaning thereby he is a habitual offender..
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after
perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody
for the last more than 02 years; investigation is complete; challan stands
presented, charges have been framed and out of 18 prosecution witnesses
none has been examined; co-accused have already been granted concession of
regular bail by this Court and the fact that trial may take a long time to
conclude, no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in further
custody. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of
the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
2 of 5
6. Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram
Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131,
wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the
bars, till her guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement
of her right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of
India and is against the principle "bail is a rule" and "jail is an exception".
7. A two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Nandlal
Mondal @ Abhay Mondal v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.)
No.12788/2023, granted bail to the accused after 18 months of incarceration
on the ground of delay in trial in an NDPS matter involving commercial
quantity of contraband. Similar relief has been granted by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in a series of judgments, namely: Md. Aliul Islam @ Aliul
Islam @ Alius v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No. 736/2024; Debrata
Mondal v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.14970/2023; Santarul Islam @
Santa v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.13169/2023; Indrajit Mondal @
Piglu v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.8512/2023; Narjul Islam @
Najbul Hoque v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.14172/2023; Subhashri
Das @ Rana @ Subhoshree v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.)
No.15284/2023; Mithun Sk. & Anr. v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.)
No.16598/2023; Sk. Nasiruddin @ Nasirddin Sk. v. State of West Bengal, SLP
(Crl.) No.3402/2024; Indadul Shah v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.)
No.12670/2023; Hanef Kharsani @ Hanef Sheikh v. Union of India; Ripon
Seikh & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.16663/2023; Moidul
Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.15668/2023; Saniya Bibi @
Soniya Bibi v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.2354/2024; Saddam
Hossain v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.15496/2023; Bijon Sk. @
3 of 5
Golam Murselim v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.6046/2024; and
Subhas v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.8823/2019.
8. Moreover, prolonged detention of the petitioner, without any
likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future, would amount to a
violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Mohd. Muslim @
Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 AIR SC 1648, while dealing with an
NDPS case, held that the principles of fairness embodied under Article 21
override the statutory restrictions on grant of bail under Section 37 of the
NDPS Act. Speaking through Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, the Court observed:
"20. The standard to be considered therefore, is one, where the
court would look at the material in a broad manner, and
reasonably see whether the accused's guilt may be proved. The
judgments of this court have, therefore, emphasized that the
satisfaction which courts are expected to record, i.e., that the
accused may not be guilty, is only prima facie, based on a
reasonable reading, which does not call for meticulous
examination of the materials collected during investigation (as
held in Union of India v. Rattan Malik). Grant of bail on ground
of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section
37 of the Act, given the imperative of Section 436A which is
applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too (ref. Satender
Kumar Antil supra). Having regard to these factors the court is
of the opinion that in the facts of this case, the appellant
deserves to be enlarged on bail.
21. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws
which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be
necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in
time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable .
Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often
than not, appalling."
4 of 5
9. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that
petitioner is involved in other/one more criminal case(s), reference is placed
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir
Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held
that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while
deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be
rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other/another
case(s). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein-
below:-
"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal
antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be
rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the
role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and
other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the
jurisdiction of the Court etc."
10. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the
petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety
bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM
concerned. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)
12.02.2026 JUDGE
puneet
i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No
5 of 5
