[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Veero Singh @ Viru Singh @ Aman vs State Of Punjab on 11 March, 2026
CRM-M-11935-2026 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
225 CRM-M-11935-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision : 11.03.2026
Veero Singh @Viru Singh @Aman
..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present : Ms. Himani Kapila, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab.
*****
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.
This petition for bail is the fourth petition, filed by the
petitioner under Section 483 of 'the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023'. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.26 dated
12.04.2024, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred
to as 'NDPS Act', Police Station Sekhwan, Police District Batala, District
Gurdaspur.
2. The abovementioned FIR came into being when a chance
recovery of contraband took place from the possession of Veeru Singh
(petitioner herein) and Akashpreet Singh, who were travelling on a
motorcycle and intercepted during the course of patrolling by a police party.
As per prosecution, 2.5 kg of Charas was recovered from their possession.
CRM-M-11935-2026 (O&M)
3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of
abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure &
sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were
performed, and further investigation taken up.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab appears on behalf of
respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed
with. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the
petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by
the State. However, the learned State Counsel has orally opposed the present
petition.
6. Heard.
7. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that although this
is fourth petition for bail filed by the petitioner, yet the same is maintainable,
as there is change in circumstance from the date of dismissal of third bail
petition, which was decided almost six months ago. As per learned counsel
for the petitioner, after dismissal of third bail petition, no significant
progress in trial has taken place and that not even a single prosecution
witness has been examined so far. According to learned counsel for the
petitioner, in view of above, the petitioner has got a right to maintain the
present petition.
8. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner has suffered a prolonged incarceration for being in
CRM-M-11935-2026 (O&M)
custody for a period of almost one year and eleven months, and that the
petitioner has clean antecedents. According to learned counsel for the
petitioner, co-accused of the petitioner, namely Akashpreet Singh, has
already been accorded the benefit of bail. As per learned counsel for the
petitioner, since the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, the
petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail.
9. The learned State Counsel has controverted the
abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, the
allegations against the petitioner are for being in possession of commercial
quantity of contraband, and that from the date of dismissal of former bail
petition, no significant change in circumstances has taken place. As per
learned State Counsel, the quantity of contraband, recovered in this case,
comes within the ambit of 'commercial quantity', and therefore, unless the
twin conditions enshrined under Section-37 of NDPS Act are satisfied, the
benefit of bail cannot be accorded to the petitioner.
10. The record has been perused carefully.
11. Since the recovery of contraband in the case in hand comes
within the ambit of commercial quantity, the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State'
(NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352 are relevant. In the
abovementioned case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that grant of bail
on account of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered under
Section-37 of the NDPS Act, given the imperative of Section 436-A which is
applicable to offences under the Act.
CRM-M-11935-2026 (O&M)
12. In this regard it is also relevant to mention here that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of '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 SCC Online SC
1109, extended the benefit of bail to the accused, who had been incarcerated
for a period of almost 2-3 years and the trial was likely to take considerable
time. The above-mentioned benefit has been given by observing that
prolonged incarceration generally militates against the most precious
fundamental 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.
13. In addition to above, in a recently pronounced verdict in the
case of 'Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr.' Criminal Appeal
No.4883/2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed 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
press for an early completion of trial. In the 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 for a period of
19 months.
14. 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 Hon'ble
CRM-M-11935-2026 (O&M)
Supreme Court of India, which considered the correct approach towards bail,
with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India expressed the opinion that Section 436A of
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [which requires inter alia the accused to
be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods]
would apply in such cases.
15. In the case of 'Ismail Khan @ Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan'
Criminal Appeal No.4911 of 2025 with regard to recovery of commercial
quantity of narcotic substance the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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.
16. The similar benefit has been taken in another appeal i.e. SLP
No.15699-2025 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.
17. In the case of 'Hasanujjaman & Ors. V/s The State of West
Bengal' SLP (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023, the benefit of bail has been accorded
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to an accused, who was found in the
possession of 115 bottles of phensedyl, by observing that:-
a) the petitioner was in custody for a period of one year and three
months;
b) the investigation in that case was complete and charge-sheet
had been filed, but charges were yet to be framed;
c) the conclusion of trial would take some time; and
CRM-M-11935-2026 (O&M)
d) the petitioner had no criminal antecedents.
In view of abovementioned prevailing factors, it has been
observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that there is substantial
compliance of Section-37 of NDPS Act.
18. Similarly, in the case of 'Nandlal Mondal @Abhay Mondal V/s
The State of West Bengal' SLP(Crl) No.12788/2023, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India afforded the benefit of bail to the accused, who was found in
possession of 10,000 ml of codeine phosphate, and was in custody for a
period of one and a half year, by considering that conclusion of trial would
take long time.
19. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed
in the light of above-mentioned principles of law, it transpires that:-
(i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of
almost one year and eleven months;
(ii) that the third bail petition filed by the petitioner was not
decided on merits, and from the date of dismissal of
abovesaid petition considerable time has elapsed, but there is
no progress in the trial, as no prosecution witness has been
examined during the intervening period;
(iii) that co-accused of the petitioner, namely Akashpreet Singh,
has already been accorded the benefit of bail;
(iv) the the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future;
(v) that nothing has been left to be recovered from possession of
petitioner;
(vi) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock up is not
likely to serve any purpose;
CRM-M-11935-2026 (O&M)
(vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on
bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or
influence the witnesses; and
(viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on
bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.
20. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Dataram versus State of Uttar
Pradesh and another", 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are relevant, wherein
it has been observed that "a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence
is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed
to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our
criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with
regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not
detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet
another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail
is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction
home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception.
Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight
of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for
longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to
our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the
discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of
judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions
rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet,
occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an
CRM-M-11935-2026 (O&M)
accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances
of a case".
21. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of
India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation and Another', (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case.
In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that "the rate of conviction
in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor
weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a
negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being
nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to
legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which
is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial.
On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a
case of grave injustice".
22. Recently, in the case of 'Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh', 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India has observed that "if an accused is to get a final verdict after
incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then,
definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article
21 of the Constitution has been infringed". It has also been observed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that "delays are
bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and
for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the
masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides
CRM-M-11935-2026 (O&M)
many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed
efficiently".
23. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and
fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable,
fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated
by Hon'ble Apex court in "Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and
Another", 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.
24. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors,
involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a
conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the
present petition deserves to be allowed.
25. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the
case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered
to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the
satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession
shall be subject to following conditions:-
(i) that 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 to disclose such facts
to the Court or to any other authority.
(ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish
the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change
in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial;
and
CRM-M-11935-2026 (O&M)
(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission
of the trial Court.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
11.03.2026
Gaurav Thakur
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
