Major Singh vs State Of Punjab
2026 Latest Caselaw 2266 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Major Singh vs State Of Punjab on 11 March, 2026

CRM-M-64243--2025 (O&M)                           1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH


     (121)                                            CRM-M-64243-2025 (O&M)
                                                      Date of decision : 11.03.2026
                                                                               2026

MAJOR SINGH

                                                                      ...
                                                                       .. Petitioner

                                      Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

                                                                     ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:      Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner

              Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab

                                        ****

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant one is the second petition 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 dated 07.11.2023

registered under Sections 21(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act (for short "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 Gurjant and recovery of commercial quantity ooff 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 dismissed by this Court on

20.02.2025.

1 of 6

2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been in

custody since long. His antecedents are clean. His prolonged incarceration

militates against his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. The trial has not progressed at all since even after

dismissal of hiss previous petition on 20.02.2025 since only 01 prosecution

witness has been examined so far, that too partially. There are no chances of

conclusion of trial in the near future. The continued detention of the petitioner

will not serve any useful purpose. Each 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 allowed.

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

petition had been dismissed 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 argued that the allegations against the petitioner are

grave in nature. The rigors of Section Section 37 of NDPS Act are attracted in this case.

As such it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

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

for the parties at considerable length.

5. The petitioner alongwith alongw the co-accused accused Gurjant 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 law that the Court, while considering an

application for grant of bail, has to keep certain factors in mind such as whether

2 of 6

there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has

committed the offence, circumstances which are peculiar to tthe he accused,

likelihood of the offence being repeated, the nature and gravity of the

accusation, severity of the punishment in the event of conviction, the danger of

the accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail, and reasonable

apprehension of the witnesses 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 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

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

3 of 6

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

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,

4 of 6

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 and 04

months, 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 cont continued inued 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.

5 of 6

11. In view of the above discussion, 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 the satisf satisfaction action 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 eeking 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 manner.

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

any, is rendered infructuous.

(MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 11.03.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:

speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No

6 of 6