[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaspreet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 19 February, 2026
CRM-M-7115-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-71175-2025 (O&M)
Jaspreet Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
Sr. No. Particulars Details
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 18.02.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 19.02.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 19.02.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced
4 Full
or full judgment is pronounced
The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not
5
reasons thereof applicable
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. The present one is the third petition as filed by the petitioner
under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for
short 'BNSS') seeking concession of regular bail in case bearing FIR
No.47 dated 17.04.2024 registered under Sections 21, 27(a) and 29 of
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS
Act') and Section 201 of IPC, at Police Station Sujanpur, District
Pathankot. His first petition had been dismissed by this Court vide order
dated 22.07.2025. He had filed another petition seeking interim bail, which
1 of 6
CRM-M-7115-2025 (O&M) -2-
was disposed of on 30.10.2025.
2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that after
dismissal of his fist petition, a period of more than six months has passed.
However, the trial has not progressed much further as only 03 out of 30
prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. There are no chance of
conclusion of trial in near future. Each day spent by him in custody has
entitled him to seek concession of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the
petition deserves to be allowed.
3. Status report has been filed. It is argued by learned Assistant
Advocate General, Punjab that keeping in view the gravity of the
allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be
extended the benefit of bail.
4. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties.
5. A perusal of the record shows that only 03 out of 30
prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Meaning thereby that
there are no chances of conclusion of the trial in near future. Though the
allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of subject offence
against him, however, he is in custody for a period of about 01 year, 09
months and 07 days. 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 6
CRM-M-7115-2025 (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. 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 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.
3 of 6
CRM-M-7115-2025 (O&M) -4-
6. 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
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 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.
7. 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.
8. In the case of Ismail Khan @ Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan
Criminal 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.
9. The similar benefit has been taken 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
4 of 6
CRM-M-7115-2025 (O&M) -5-
Appeal No.4872 of 2025.
10. 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, the trial
is not likely to be concluded in near future as 03 out of 30 prosecution
witness have been examined; the petitioner 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. Moreso, co-
accused Tousief Hussain @ Tousif Hussain has also been extended benefit
of bail.
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 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 pendency of the trial.
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
5 of 6
CRM-M-7115-2025 (O&M) -6-
case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner.
(MANISHA BATRA)
19.02.2026 JUDGE
Waseem Ansari
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
