[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amit vs State Of Haryana on 13 March, 2026
CRM-M-12621-2026 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
220 CRM-M-12621-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision : 13.03.2026
Amit
..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present : Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
*****
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.
This petition for bail is the second 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.273 dated
31.08.2024, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 20 and
29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being
referred to as 'NDPS Act', Police Station Sector-13/17, Panipat District
Panipat.
2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of
'ASI Rajesh Kumar', who reported that on 31.08.2024 when he was leading
a team of police officials, deputed for patrolling duty, on the basis of a tip-
off given by a reliable source a car bearing registration No.HR-12AJ-6516
was intercepted and 'Amit' (petitioner herein) and 'Bhajan Lal' were
CRM-M-12621-2026 (O&M)
apprehended. As per prosecution, when the search of abovementioned
vehicle was conducted, 1.5 kg of 'charas' was recovered.
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. Ms. Deepali Verma, Asst. A.G. Haryana 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. The record has been perused carefully.
8. 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 of India 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-12621-2026 (O&M)
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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-12621-2026 (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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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-12621-2026 (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.
15. 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.
16. 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 more
than one year and six months;
(ii) that although this is second petition for bail filed by the
petitioner, but the same is maintainable, as the record shows
that the first petition was not decided on merits and the same
was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.10.2025. Since then
there is no significant progress in the trial;
(iii) that on the basis of parity, too, the petitioner is also entitled
for bail as his co-accused, namely Bhajn Lal @Bhajan, has
already been accorded the benefit of bail;
(iv) that the recovery of contraband from the possession of
petitioner is marginally above the lower limit prescribed for
commercial quantity of charas, i.e. 1.5 kg against the limit of
01 kg;
CRM-M-12621-2026 (O&M)
(v) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future;
(vi) that nothing has been left to be recovered from possession of
petitioner;
(vii) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock up is not
likely to serve any purpose;
(viii) 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
(ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on
bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.
17. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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
CRM-M-12621-2026 (O&M)
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 accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the
circumstances of a case".
18. 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".
19. 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
CRM-M-12621-2026 (O&M)
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
many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed
efficiently".
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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
CRM-M-12621-2026 (O&M)
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
(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission
of the trial Court.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
13.03.2026
Gaurav Thakur
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
