[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kamaljit Singh Alias Kamaljit Ram vs State Of Punjab on 17 March, 2026
CRM-M-55488-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-55488-2025
Kamaljit Singh @ Kamaljit Ram
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
Sr. No. Particulars Details
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 12.03.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 17.03.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 17.03.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full
4 Full
judgment is pronounced
The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not
5
reasons thereof applicable
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Damanjit Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J :-
The instant one is the second petition filed under Section 483 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the
petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 215 dated
16.08.2021 registered under Section 15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substance Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') (Section 29 of NDPS Act added
later on) at Police Station Focal Point, District Ludhiana, Punjab. The
previous petition filed by the petitioner had been dismissed for want of
prosecution vide order dated 10.09.2025.
1 of 7
2. As per the allegations, on 16.08.2021, while performing
patrolling duty in the area of village Jandiali, the police party noticed one car
make Ascent bearing registration No. PB-02-AG-3355 lying parked on the
left side of the Kutcha path of the road. On seeing the police officials, one
person stepped out of the car and rushed towards the fields. He was
apprehended. On asking, he disclosed his name as Raj Kumar. On conducing
search, 66 kgs of poppy husk was found kept in the car. Accused Raj Kumar
on interrogation disclosed that the contraband belong to the petitioner, his
uncle Balbir Singh and one Sukhi @ Matta and also that all the above named
persons including the petitioner were going in an Alto car bearing registration
No. PB-08-CL-321 for supplying the poppy husk at village Pangaliyan and
that they had dumped huge quantity of poppy husk in bushes near the above
said village. The police party left for village Pangaliyan along with the
accused Raj Kumar. On seeing the police officials, two females and two male
persons who were present at the spot fled towards the fields and succeeded in
escaping from the spot on two vehicles. On conducting search, 16 bags
containing 352 kgs of poppy husk were found kept in an Alto car which was
lying parked there. The recovered contraband was taken into possession. The
petitioner was arrested on 16.11.2021. The co-accused were also arrested
subsequently. Investigation now stands completed.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been
falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody for a period of more than 04
years and 03 months. There are no chances of conclusion of trial in near future
as till date, none out of 17 prosecution witnesses has been examined. The
2 of 7
continued detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. Co-
accused Balbir Singh and Sukhi @ Matta have been extended benefit of bail.
On parity, he too deserves to be extended the same benefit. It is, therefore,
argued that he deserves to be released on bail.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that, keeping in
view the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and the nature of the allegations
levelled against him, coupled with the fact that the rigors of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act are attracted in the present case, the petitioner does not deserve to
be extended the benefit of bail. It is also argued that there are chances of his
absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail.
Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.
5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at
considerable length.
6. The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have been
found in conscious possession of commercial quantity of contraband. He has
been in custody for over a period for 04 years and 03 months. This factor, in
the opinion of this Court, is a ground to move for bail afresh. 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 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 the requirements of the criminal justice
3 of 7
system. Prolonged detention itself is a ground for reconsideration of bail since
the settled principle of law is that detention prior to trial should not become
punitive. Trial is likely to take time to conclude as most of the prosecution
witnesses are yet to be examined. 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
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 Section 37 of the NDPS Act, given the imperative
of Section 436-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 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 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
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.
7. Reliance can also be placed upon Santosh Pawar Vs. State of
4 of 7
Chhattishgarh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025, which is a recently
pronounced verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court observing that rigours 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.
8. 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
Supreme Court of India, 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 the trial is not concluded within specified periods) of
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 would apply.
9. 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.
10. The similar benefit has been extended by Hon'ble Supreme Court
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
5 of 7
Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.4872 of 2025.
11. On analyzing the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present
case in the light of the aforementioned principles of law, it transpires that the
petitioner has suffered prolonged incarceration for over a period of four years
and three months, the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as all
the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined; 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.
12. 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 on
his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the
learned trial Court, and subject to the condition that he shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case. He shall appear before the learned trial Court on
each and every date of hearing except when his presence is exempted by the
trial Court. He shall surrender his passport, if any, furnish details of his cell
phone and Aadhar card, and shall not change his mobile number(s) during the
pendency of the trial.
13. It is 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 the main petition has already been decided, pending
6 of 7
application, if any, is rendered infructuous.
[MANISHA BATRA]
JUDGE
17th March, 2026
Parveen Sharma
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No
2. Whether reportable : Yes / No
7 of 7
