Sukhwinder Singh Alias Sukha vs State Of Punjab
2026 Latest Caselaw 946 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sukhwinder Singh Alias Sukha vs State Of Punjab on 3 February, 2026

Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj

Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj

CRM-M No.57637 of 2025                         1



239
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                               CRM-M No.57637 of 2025
                                               Date of Decision: 03.02.2026

Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha
                                                                   .....Petitioner

                                     Versus

State of Punjab
                                                                .....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:     Mr. Rituraj Singh, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. K. D. Sachdeva, DAG, Punjab

                          *****

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular

bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.0069, dated 20.06.2023, under

Sections 21(C)/29/61/85 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station

Valtoha, District Tarn Taran. Further prayer has been made for granting

interim bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the present petition.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the police party, while on

patrolling on 20.06.2023, saw a person coming from the front side, who was

carrying a heavy polythene in his right hand. On seeing the police, he got

perplexed and threw the heavy polythene on the road. On suspicion, he was

apprehended and on asking, he disclosed his name Sukhwinder Singh @

Sukha. He was suspected to be carrying some contraband in the polythene,

which was thrown by him. However, the same was searched and on

conducting the search, 500 grams of heroin was recovered from the polythene

1 of 5

bag. He failed to produce any licence regarding the conscious possession of

the same. Hence, the FIR was registered and he was arrested on the spot. On

registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. On completion of the

investigation, the challan was presented and on framing of charges, the trial

commenced. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran praying for the grant of regular bail. However,

after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, dismissed the bail application filed by

the petitioner vide order dated 25.11.2024. Hence being aggrieved, the

petitioner has approached this Court praying for the grant of bail by way of

filing the present petition.

3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that

the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in the present case.

He has submitted that the co-accused, namely, Kuljit Kaur @ Kuldeep Kaur

has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 23.07.2025

passed in CRM-M-61323-2024. He has submitted that the petitioner is behind

bars since the date of his arrest, i.e. 20.06.2023 and thus, has suffered an

incarceration of more than 2½ years, however, there is no progress in the trial.

To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents as he has never been involved

in any other case. He has submitted that the alleged recovery has been

effected from the public place, however no independent witness has been

joined. He has further submitted that there is a violation of mandatory

provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act. He has thus submitted that in view of

the facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted regular bail.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the

2 of 5

submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that

on due compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, recovery of 500 grams of

heroin was effected from the petitioner, which falls under the commercial

quantity and hence, provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted.

He, on instructions has submitted that out of total 22 prosecution witnesses,

only 02 witnesses have been examined so far. He has produced custody

certificate of the petitioner today in the Court, which is taken on record.

5. Heard.

6. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is

deciphered that the petitioner was arrested on the spot, i.e. on 20.06.2023 and

since then, he is behind bars. The alleged recovery of 500 grams of heroin was

effected from the petitioner, which is commercial in nature. As submitted by

learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

Out of total 22 prosecution witnesses, only 02 witnesses have been examined

so far.

7. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd Muslim @

Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw(SC)260, this Court is of

the opinion that the case of the petitioner is covered by the ratio of law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the abovesaid case, Hon'ble Supreme

Court expressed its views as under:-

19. A plain and literal interpretation of the conditions under Section 37 (i.e., that Court should be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and would not commit any offence) would effectively exclude grant of bail altogether, resulting in punitive detention and unsanctioned preventive detention as well. Therefore, the only manner in which such special conditions as enacted under Section 37 can be considered within constitutional parameters is where the court is reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the material on record (whenever the bail application is made)

3 of 5

that the accused is not guilty. Any other interpretation, would result in complete denial of the bail to a person accused of offences such as those enacted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

20 xxxxx 21 .....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. 22 xxxxx

23. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to crime, "as crime not only turns admirable, but the more professional the crime, more honour is paid to the criminal"22 (also see Donald Clemmer's 'The Prison Community' published in 194023). Incarceration has further deleterious effects-where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as well as loss of family bonds and alienation from society. The courts therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials-especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily.'

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashim @ Asim Kumar

Haranath Bhattacharya @ Asim Harinath Bhattacharya @ Aseem

Kumar Bhattacharya Vs. National Investigation Agency, 2022(1) SCC

695 has held as under:

"Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. While deprivation of personal liberty for some period may not be avoidable, period of deprivation pending trial/appeal cannot be unduly long. At the same time, timely delivery of justice is part of human rights and denial of speedy justice is a threat to

4 of 5

public confidence in the administration of justice."

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision dated

03.07.2024 in 'Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra,

Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024', has held that howsoever serious a

crime may be, an accused has the right to speedy trial under the Constitu-

tion of India.

10. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the

conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both

the parties before the trial Court. This Court would refrain itself from

commenting anything on the merits of the case. The trial of the case will take

sufficient long time. Thus, keeping in view the arguments raised by both the

sides, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner

succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

11. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is

ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the

satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

12. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion

on the merits of the case. However, if the petitioner does not furnish the bail

bonds within seven days from today, then his further custody period after

one week will not be counted in this case.

                                                      (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
03.02.2026                                                  JUDGE
rittu                 Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No
                      Whether reportable        :Yes/No




                                    5 of 5