Sukhjinder Singh vs State Of Punjab
2026 Latest Caselaw 1474 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sukhjinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 16 February, 2026

CRM-M-65794--2025 (O&M)                          1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                            CHANDIGARH

     (318)                                            CRM-M-65794-20252025 (O&M)
                                                      Date of decision : 16.02.2026
                                                                              .2026

SUKHJINDER SINGH

                                                                      ...
                                                                       .. Petitioner

                                       Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

                                                                     ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:       Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner

               Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab

                           ****

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant 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.25 No.25 dated 14.04.2023 registered under

Section 18(c), 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985 (for short "NDPS") " (Section 25 of NDPS deleted later on) (Sections 419,

468, 471 and 473 of IPC added later on) at Police Station Chohla Sahib, District

Tarn Taran.

2. As per the allegations, on 14.04.2023, the Police officials were

doing patrolling duty at Naka T Point Nikka Chohla, Fatehabad Road. One

Canter Eicher bearing registration No.PB02-EC No.PB02 EC-7410 7410 was stopped in which 02

persons were sitting. The person sitting on the driver seat disclosed his name as

Sukhjinder Singh i.e. the present petitioner and the other one disclosed his name

1 of 5

as Harpal Singh @ Bhallu.

Bhallu. On conducting search of the vehicle, 2 KG 800

Grams of opium was recovered which was taken into possession by the Police.

The petitioner ner and co-accused co accused were formally arrested. 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 him. His

continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. He is in prolonged

incarceration for a period of over 02 years and 10 months. However, there has

not been much progress in the trial as only 03 prosecution witnesses witnesses, have been

examined so far.. He is not involved in other cases and has clean antecedents.. It

is thus, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Status report and custody certificate have been filed. Learned State

counsel has argued that commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered

from conscious possession of the petitioner. The rigors of Section 37 of NDPS

Act are attracted in this case. There are chances of petitioner petitioner'ss committing

similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, ttherefore, herefore, stressed that the

petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail.

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

for both the parties at considerable length.

6. The petitioner is in custody for a period of 02 years and 10 months.

There are no chances of conclusion of trial in the near future as only 03

prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. It is well settled proposition

of law that grant of bail on account of delay in trial and long period of

2 of 5

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 grantt 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 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 LiveLaw (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 observ observing ing 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 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 bei being ng in possession of

3 of 5

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 opinio opinion n 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

nal Appeal No.4911 of 2025 with regard to recovery of commercial Crminal

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. 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 for a period of 02 years and 110

months.. The trial is not likely to be concluded in ne near future as only nly 03

4 of 5

prosecution rosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The petitioner'ss 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 bai bail, l, 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 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 event of there being any FIR/complai FIR/complaint nt lodged against the

petitioner, it shall be open to the respondent-State respondent State to seek redressal by filing an

application seeking cancellation of bail.

14. It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not

be construed as an expression of opinion 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.

                                                     (MANISHA BATRA)
                                                        JUDGE
16.02.2026          Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Amit Sharma         Whether reportable:- Yes/No




                                        5 of 5