Hardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab
2026 Latest Caselaw 2588 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Hardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 17 March, 2026

                  CRM-M-59-2026 (O&M)
                                           1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH
210                              CRM-M-59-2026 (O&M)
                                 Date of decision : 17.03.2026

Hardeep Singh
                                                                  ..... Petitioner
                                    VERSUS
State of Punjab
                                                                ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Present :    Mr. Rajdeep Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner.

        Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.
                              *****
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

This petition for bail is the first 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.88 dated 22.11.2024,

for the commission of offence punishable under Section 15 and 21 of

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station

Sherpur, District Sangrur.

2. The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of 'ASI

Balwinder Singh', who reported that on 22.11.2024 when he was leading a

team of police officials, on the basis of a tip-off given by a reliable source he

visited the house of Davinder Singh @Goggi. According to abovementioned

report when the police party was approaching the house of Davinder Singh

@Goggi, outside his house, there was a car, wherein Davinder Singh

@Goggi was sitting along with petitioner. It is the case of the prosecution

that when the search of the abovementioned car was carried out, from the

1 of 9

CRM-M-59-2026 (O&M)

boot (dickey) of the car, 10 kg poppy husk and from the dashboard of the car

20 grams of Heroin were recovered.

3. The prosecution has further alleged that pursuant to

abovementioned recovery, the requisite formalities with regard to seizure

and sealing of contraband and formal arrest of the accused were completed

and further investigation taken up. According to prosecution when the

abovesaid accused were interrogated, pursuant to disclosure statement

suffered by co-accused Davinder Singh @Goggi, 1kg Heroin was recovered

from his possession.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, 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 status report as well as custody

certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record.

6. Heard.

7. The record has been perused carefully.

8. Since the recovered contraband in the present case 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 of India 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.

2 of 9

CRM-M-59-2026 (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

Supreme Court of India, which considered the correct approach towards bail,

3 of 9

CRM-M-59-2026 (O&M)

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

d) the petitioner had no criminal antecedents.

4 of 9

CRM-M-59-2026 (O&M)

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 three months;

(ii) that the recovery of contraband from the vehicle, in which petitioner was allegedly present, comes within the ambit of non-commercial quantity;

(iii) that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

(iv) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as out of fifteen prosecution witnesses, only six have been examined so far;

(v) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock up is not likely to serve any purpose;

(vi) 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

5 of 9

CRM-M-59-2026 (O&M)

(vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in 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

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".

6 of 9

CRM-M-59-2026 (O&M)

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

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".

7 of 9

CRM-M-59-2026 (O&M)

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 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

8 of 9

CRM-M-59-2026 (O&M)

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.

                                                  (SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
                                                         JUDGE
17.03.2026
Vinod
                    Whether speaking / reasoned            Yes/No
                    Whether Reportable                     Yes/No




                                   9 of 9