[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sarwan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 20 February, 2026
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 24-02-2026 00:56:38 :::
CRM-M-3945-2026
(204)
::2::
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is a violation
of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act regarding search and seizure
including Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution version is inherently
unbelievable. As the petitioner is in custody since 01.05.2023 but only 03
out of the 16 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, the Trial of
the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he
is entitled to the concession of bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that the
petitioner is a habitual offender. He is an accused in 03 other cases arising
out of FIR No.107 dated 17.07.2021 U/s 22/25/29/61/85 NDPS Act P.S.
Verka, FIR No.323/2020 dated 09.11.2020 U/s 22-C/29/61/85 NDPS Act,
P.S. Kathunangal and FIR No.36/2023 dated 02.05.2023 U/s 22/29/61/85
NDPS Act and Section 419 IPC, P.S. Ramdas. The instant petition is the 3rd
bail petition on behalf of the petitioner, the last one having been withdrawn
on 15.10.2025 (Annexure P-6). Therefore, keeping in view the antecedents
of the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of bail, moreso in view
of the bar contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. This is the 3rd bail petition on behalf of the petitioner. The
details of his earlier bail applications are as under:-
Sr. No. Bail Application Date of Decision
1.
CRM-M-51382-2024 Dismissed as withdrawn on 24.01.2025
2. CRM-M-25869-2025 Dismissed as withdrawn on 15.10.2025
2 of 5
CRM-M-3945-2026
::3::
7. The details of other FIRs registered against the petitioner are as
under:-
Sr. No. FIR Nos. and date Sections Police Station
1. FIR No.107 dated 22/25/29/61/85 NDPS Verka
17.07.2021 Act
2. FIR No.323/2020 22-C/29/61/85 NDPS Kathunangal
dated 09.11.2020 Act
3. FIR No.36/2023 22/29/61/85 NDPS Act Ramdas
dated 02.05.2023 and Section 419 IPC
8. Apparently, the petitioner is serial offender with multiple other
cases registered against him under the NDPS Act. No change in
circumstances whatsoever have been pointed out by the counsel for the
petitioner after the 2nd bail petition of the petitioner came to be argued and
withdrawn on 15.10.2025 (Annexure P-6).
9. This Court in the case of Soni Singh @ Chamkaur Singh
Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-31645-2022, decided on 20.10.2022, held
as under:-
"Admittedly, the petitioner in the present case is named in the
disclosure statement of the arrested accused. Subsequently thereto
3Kgs of Poppy Husk was recovered at his instance which is a non
commercial quantity. It may be relevant to mention here that
limitations to the grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act
are in addition to those prescribed under Cr.PC or any other law
inforce on the grant of bail as has been set out by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Satpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2018(5) RCR
(Criminal) 152. In the present case, the petitioner is involved in
two other cases under the NDPS Act. Thus, as he is a habitual
3 of 5
CRM-M-3945-2026
::4::
offender, he is not entitled to the grant of bail even under Section
439 Cr.PC keeping in view his antecedents. Even otherwise,
assuming that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not
apply to the petitioner, that by itself would not ipso facto lead to
the grant of bail to the petitioner.
In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the present
petition and the same is therefore dismissed."
10. In fact, when there are multiple FIRs against an accused over a
significant period of time, then the twin conditions as envisaged under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act that he had not committed an offence and was
not likely to commit an offence cannot be satisfied. Further, the limitation to
the grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are in addition to those
prescribed under the Cr.P.C. or any other law in force on the grant of bail.
Thus, a habitual offender is not entitled to the grant of bail even under the
provisions of the Cr.P.C. keeping in view his criminal antecedents even
though, his co-accused who are similarly situated may have been granted the
said concession.
11. Keeping in view the allegations levelled against the petitioner
as well as his antecedents the satisfaction under Section 37 of the NDPS Act
that he has not committed an offence and is not likely to commit one in the
future cannot be recorded.
12. Therefore, I do not deem it appropriate to grant them the
concession of bail and hence, the present petition stands dismissed.
13. However, the Trial Court is directed to conclude the Trial as
expeditiously as possible but in any case not later than 06 months from the
next date of hearing fixed before it.
4 of 5
CRM-M-3945-2026
::5::
14. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
20.02.2026
Jitesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
