Surinder Singh Alias Gaggu vs State Of Punjab
2026 Latest Caselaw 673 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Surinder Singh Alias Gaggu vs State Of Punjab on 27 January, 2026

CRM-M-70447-2025(O&M)
            2025(O&M)                           1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH

     (239)                                           CRM-M-70447-2025 (O&M)
                                                     Date of decision : 27.01.2026

SURINDER SINGH @ GAGGU                                                ... Petitioner

                                      Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB                                                    ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:      Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate for the petitioner

              Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab

                                        ****

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition is the second petition preferred by the

petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

(for short "BNSS BNSS") for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. No.392

dated 28.12.2023 registered under Sections 21(c) and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act (for short "NDPS"")) at Police Station Special Task

Force, SAS Nagar, Mohali on the allegations that on 28.12.2023, he alongwith

the co-accused accused Paramjit Paramjit Singh @ Mithu was found in conscious possession of

300 grams of heroin. His previous petition was dismissed by this Court on

21.05.2025.

2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that ever since the

dismissal of the previous petition a period period of more tha than n eight months has been

passed. However, owever, there is no much progress in the trial since only 04 out of 16

prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. He has been in continuous

incarceration for more than 02 years. The trial is still nnot ot likely to be concluded

1 of 5

CRM-M-70447-2025(O&M)

in the near future. He has clean antecedents. Each day spent by him in custody

has furnished a new ground for him to seek bail afresh. The co co-accused accused has

already y been extended benefit of bail.

bail Onn parity, he too deserves to be rreleased eleased

on bail. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the previous

petition filed by the petitioner had been dismissed on merits by passing a

detailed order. There is no substantive substantive change in the circumstances. The

allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is, therefore, argued

that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

4. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel

for both th the parties at considerable length.

5. The petitioner alongwith the co-accused co accused is alleged to have been

found in conscious possession of 300 grams of heroin on 28.12.2023 and has

been in custody since then. Only 04 out of 16 prosecution witnesses have been

examined so far. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. The

Hon'ble ble Supreme Court has consistently held in a catena of judgments that an

accused cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period. A bail application

can be considered dered on its own merits even if filed repeatedly, as each day spent in

custody provides a fresh cause of action. Grant of bail on account of delay in

trial and prolonged incarceration must be assessed in light of Section 37 of the

NDPS Act.

6. In this context, context, reliance may be placed on Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v.

352, wherein it was held that grant State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352

of bail on account of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered by Section

2 of 5

CRM-M-70447-2025(O&M)

37 of the NDPS Act, in view of the imperative imperative of Section 436 436-A A Cr.P.C., which

applies to offences under the NDPS Act. It was also observed by the Hon Hon'ble ble

Supreme Court that the jails are overcrowded and their living conditions are,

more often than not, appalling and that unjustified incarcer incarceration ation tends to harden

rather than reform an individual. 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 Rabdi 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 Articlee 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.

Act

7. Reliance can also be placed upon Santosh Pawar Vs. State of

No.4883/2025, which is a recently Chhattishgarh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025

pronounced verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court observing that rigors 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 ppress ress for an early

completion of trial. In the above-mentioned 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 carceration for a period of 19 months. In the case of Insmail Khan @ Pathan

Vs. State of Rajasthan Criminal Appeal No.4911 of 2025 with regard to

recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, the Hon Hon'ble ble Supreme

Court of India accorded the benefit benefit of bail to the accused in view of the

3 of 5

CRM-M-70447-2025(O&M)

prolonged incarceration for a period of 02 years and 08 months of the accused.

The similar benefit had been extended in another appeal i.e. SLP No.15699--

Bengal and in the 2025 titled as Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK vs. The State of West Beng

case of Pamesh Arora Vs. UT Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.4872 of 2025.

8. Upon analyzing the facts and circumstances of the present case in

the light of the above principles, it transpires that the petitioner has already

undergone prolonged incarceration of more than 02 years and 27 days; the trial

is not likely to be concluded in the near future as only 04 out of 16 prosecution

witnesses have been examined. His continued detention will not serve any

fruitful purpose. There is nothing on record record to suggest that the petitioner is

likely to tamper with evidence, abscond or influence witnesses. In the

circumstances, peculiar to the case, this Court is of the considered view that a

case for grant of regular bail is made out.

9. Accordingly, the the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to

be released on bail on furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the

satisfaction of the learned trial Court and learned trial Court/Chief Judicial

Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

concerned

10. In the event of there being any FIR/complaint lodged against the

petitioner, it shall be open to the respondent to seek redressal by filing an

application seeking cancellation of bail.

11. 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.

4 of 5

CRM-M-70447-2025(O&M)

12. Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if

any, is rendered infructuous.

(MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 27.01.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No

5 of 5