[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurjant Singh vs State Of Punjab on 10 March, 2026
CRM-M-70456--2025 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-70456-2025 (O&M)
GURJANT SINGH
...
.. Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 06.03.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 10.03.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 10.03.2026
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.
r. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab
****
MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)
1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section
483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS") for grant
of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.176
No.176 dated 07.11.2023 registered
under Sections 21(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act (for short "NDPS
NDPS")) at Police Station Sadar Patti, District Tarn Taran on the
allegations that on 07.11.2023, he was apprehended alongwith the co-accused
accused
1 of 6
Major Singh and recovery of commercial quantity of 705 grams of heroin was
effected from their conscious possession. The previous petition as filed by the
petitioner for grant of regular bail had been dismis
dismissed
sed by this Court on
25.07.2025, whereas
whereas an application for grant of interim bail had been allowed.
2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been in
custody since long. His prolonged incarceration militates against his
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 ooff the Constitution of India. The
trial
ial has not progressed at all since even
even after dismissal of his previous petition
on 25.07.2025, only 01 prosecution witness has been examined so far
far, that too
partially. There are no chances of conclusion of trial in tthe
he near future. The
continued detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. Each
day spent by him in custody has furnished him a ground to move bail afresh for
seeking bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allo
allowed.
3. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that since the previous
petition had been dismissed by passing a detailed order and there is no
substantive or drastic change in the circumstances, therefore, the petition is not
maintainable. It is further
further argued that the allegations against the petitioner are
grave in nature. The rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are attracted in this case.
Ass such it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.
4. This Court has heard the rival submissions
missions made by learned counsel
for the parties at considerable length.
2 of 6
5. The petitioner alongwith the co-accused
co accused Major Singh is alleged to
have been found in conscious possession of commercial quantity of contraband.
He is in custody since 10.11.2023. The chances of conclusion of trial in the near
future are bleak. It is well-settled
settled law that the Court, while considering an
application for grant of bail, has to keep certain factors in mind such as whether
there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground
ground to believe that the accused has
committed the offence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused,
likelihood of the offence being repeated, the nature and gravity of the
accusation, severity of the punishment in the event of conviction, the dange
dangerr of
the accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail, and reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being threatened, etc. However, at the same time,
the period of incarceration is also a relevant factor to be considered while
deciding whether bail should
should be granted to an accused charged with an offence.
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
every day spent in 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
with the requirements of the criminal justice
system. 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
regard can be placed upon the observations
made by Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of
3 of 6
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 Sect
Section
ion 37 of
the NDPS Act, given the imperative of Section 436
436-A
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
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 LiveLaw (SC) 533, 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
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.
6. Reliance can also be placed upon Santosh Pawar Vs. State of
ishgarh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025, which is a recently
Chhattishgarh
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
that the prosecution would press for an early
completion of trial. In the above-mentioned
above mentioned case the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that appellant who was being prosecuted for being in possession of
4 of 6
commercial quantity of narcotic substance, was entitled for bail iin
n 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 Ho
Hon'ble
n'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 tthe
he 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
Crminal 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. Similar benefit has been extended in another appeal i.e. SLP
No.15699-2025
2025 titled
titled as Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK vs. The State of West Bengal
and in the case of Pamesh Arora vs. UT Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.4872
of 2025.
10. On analyzing the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present
case in the light of the aforementioned principles
principles of law, it transpires that the
petitioner has suffered prolonged incarceration for a period of 02 years, 03
5 of 6
months and 23 days, the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as only
01 out of 12 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. 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.
11. In view of the above discussion, this
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 subject to
his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to tthe
he satisfaction of the learned
trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.
12. In the event of there being any FIR/complaint lodged against the
petitioner, it shall be open to the respondent-State
respondent State to seek redressal by filing an
application seeking cancellation of bail.
13. It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not
be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case
and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any man
manner.
14. Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if
any, is rendered infructuous.
(MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
10.03.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No
6 of 6
