[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 18 February, 2026
CRM-M-64585-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
218
CRM-M-64585-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision : 18.02.2026
Pardeep Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Aajeshwar Singh Grewal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.
MANISHA BATRA, J.(Oral)
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 to him in FIR No. 23 dated 18.03.2024, registered under
Sections 22(c), 27 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') at Police Station Balianwali, Bathinda. The
previous petition was dismissed by this Court on 22.08.2025.
2. The petitioner has been booked in the aforesaid FIR and facing trial
therein on the allegations that on 18.03.2024, he was apprehended by a police
party and recovery of 3200 intoxicating tablets of Tramadol, which fell under
commercial quantity, was effected from him.
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.
He is in custody for a period of about 01 year and 11 months. Trial has not
progressed since the date of dismissal of his previous petition as a perusal of the
1 of 5
CRM-M-64585-2025 (O&M) -2-
order dated 22.08.2025, whereby his previous petition was dismissed, would
show that at that time, only 07 out of total 19 prosecution witnesses were
examined. Since then, not even a single witness has been examined and the trial
is standstill. There is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near
future. The extended period of his incarceration is a sufficient and new ground
to seek concession of bail to him. His continued detention would not serve any
useful purpose. He has clean antecedents. With these broad submissions, it is
urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.
4. Status report and custody certificate have 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 is alleged to be found in conscious possession of
commercial quantity of contraband. He is in custody since 18.03.2024 and has
spent a period of about 01 year and 11 months in custody. Obviously the trial is
likely to take time to conclude. This 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
2 of 5
CRM-M-64585-2025 (O&M) -3-
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. 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. 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 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
3 of 5
CRM-M-64585-2025 (O&M) -4-
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 of
India 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 of
India, 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 of India 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. 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.
10. On analyzing the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present
4 of 5
CRM-M-64585-2025 (O&M) -5-
case in the light of the aforementioned principles of law, it transpires that the
petitioner has suffered prolonged incarceration for a period of about 01 year and
11 months, 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
18.02.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
