[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satnam Singh vs State Of Punjab on 20 January, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.40225 of 2025
Satnam Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 16.01.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 20.01.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 20.01.2026
website
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or whether the full judgment is
pronounced
5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable
judgment, and reasons thereof
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Navjot Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab,
for the respondent-State.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. The present one is the second petition as filed by the
petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (For short "BNSS") for grant of regular bail in case arising out of
1 of 5
FIR No.233 dated 24.12.2023 registered under Sections 22(c) and 29
(Section 27 added later on) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') at Police Station City Rampura, District
Bathinda, Punjab. The first petition as filed by the petitioner had been
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 02.04.2025.
2. As per the allegations, on 24.12.2023, the petitioner along with
co-accused Gurpreet Singh @ Gaggu was apprehended and recovery of
commercial quantity of contraband i.e. 7600 intoxicating tablets of Tramadol
and 3600 tablets of Alprazolam had been effected from his conscious
possession which were taken into custody. The petitioner and co-accused
were formally arrested. Investigation now stands completed and he along
with the co-accused is facing trial for commission of the aforementioned
offences.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has
been falsely implicated in this case. Infact, a false recovery has been planted
upon them. The petitioner and co-accused were apprehended and wrongfully
confined by the police on the night of 23.12.2024. The keys of their lab had
been forcibly taken by the police officials. The cameras installed therein
were tried to be disabled and DVR was removed. He is in custody since
long. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. The trial
will take considerable time to conclude as only 08 prosecution witnesses
have been examined so far. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished
a ground for seeking benefit of bail afresh. It is, therefore, urged that the
2 of 5
petition deserves to be allowed.
4. Status report and custody certificate have been filed. Learned
Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has argued that there are serious and
specific allegations against the petitioner. Commercial quantity of
contraband had been recovered at his instance. The rigors of Section 37 of
NDPS Act are attracted in this case. This petition being successive petition
is not maintainable. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve
to be allowed.
5. This Court has considered the rival submissions.
6. The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have been
found in conscious possession of commercial quantity of intoxicating tablets
as on 24.12.2023. He has placed on record a Compact Disc to contend that
he along with the co-accused was taken into illegal custody by the police
officials on the night of 23.12.2023. At this stage, no relevance whatsoever
can be given to the contents of this Compact Disc. The allegations make out
a prima facie case for commission of subject offences as against the
petitioner. However, he is in custody for a period of over 02 years. The trial
is likely to take considerable time to conclude since only 08 out of 25
witnesses have been examined. 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
3 of 5
custody can provide a new cause of action for filing a bail application under
certain 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 prolonged incarceration generally
militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution and in such cases, when there is delay in
conclusion of trial without there being any fault on the part of the accused,
he becomes entitled to be released on bail. Since the trial of this case,
apparently and evidently is shown to have been delayed, as such, this Court
is of the considered opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by
keeping the petitioner in custody any more. Accordingly, the petition is
allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to bail subject to his
furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial
Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it will be open for the
prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail in case the petitioner is found
involved in any other subsequent case and if it appears that it is on account
of any act and conduct of the petitioner that further delay is being caused in
the conclusion of the trial and further subject to his abiding by the following
conditions:-
(i) The petitioner will not tamper with evidence during
4 of 5
trial.
(ii) he will appear before the trial Court on each and
every date fixed, unless his presence is exempted by
specific order of the Court.
(iii) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer.
(iv) any infraction shall entail in withdrawal of the
benefit granted by this court.
7. In the eventuality of breach of any of the aforementioned
conditions, the respondent-State shall be at liberty to move an application
seeking cancellation of the bail.
8. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only
for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no
bearing on the merits of the case.
(MANISHA BATRA)
20.01.2026 JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
