[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Akashbir Singh vs State Of Punjab on 20 March, 2026
CRM-M-7496-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-7496-2026
Akashbir Singh
...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 20.03.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 20.03.2026
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. Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Durgesh Garg, 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. 115 dated
10.05.2024 registered under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substance Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') (Sections 27-A and 29 of NDPS
Act added later on) at Police Station Gharinda, District Amritsar. His previous
1 of 7
petition bearing CRM-M-No-31427-2025 had been dismissed as withdrawn
vide order dated 04.07.2025.
2. As per the allegations, on 10.05.2024, a police party headed by
SI Manjit Singh was present at Drain bridge, village Rajatal, when two youths
reached there while riding on a motor bike. They were given signal to stop but
they felt perplexed and tried to take a reverse turn. The bike had slipped down.
The pillion rider took out a heavy envelop from the right pocket of his pant
and tried to throw the same away but he was apprehended along with the driver.
On asking, the pillion rider disclosed his name as Aakashbir Singh i.e. the
present petitioner and the driver disclosed his name as Bunty. On checking the
polythene, 510 grams of heroin was recovered. The phone of the petitioner
along with the motor bike and recovered contraband were taken into
possession. The petitioner and co-accused were formally arrested. The
petitioner suffered disclosure statement, on the basis of which one Varinder
Singh @ Kalu was nominated as additional accused. He disclosed that he was
in contact with one Pakistani smuggler namely Malik and used to make
contact with him on a mobile. He received consignments of the contraband
and supplied them further and also used to receive drug money and to deliver
it further. Subsequently, co-accused Malik was also nominated and had been
arrested. Investigation now stands concluded.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been
falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery has been planted upon him.
He is in custody since long. Each day spent by him in custody has given rise
2 of 7
to a fresh cause of action for seeking bail. His further incarceration would not
serve any useful purpose. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. His
involvement in another case cannot be considered to be a reason for denying
benefit of bail to him. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be
allowed.
4. Status report and custody certificate have been filed by
respondent-State. It is argued by learned State counsel that commercial
quantity of contraband has been recovered at the instance of the petitioner and
co-accused. The rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are attracted in this case.
The petition being a successive one is not maintainable. 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 the commercial quantity of contraband. The
allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of subject offence as
against him. However, he has now been in custody since 13.05.2024. There
are no chances of conclusion of trial in near future as not even a single
prosecution witness has been examined so far. 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
3 of 7
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 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
4 of 7
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
Chhattishgarh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025, which is a recently
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 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
5 of 7
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
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 about 01
year and 10 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
6 of 7
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
application, if any, is rendered infructuous.
[MANISHA BATRA]
JUDGE
20th March, 2026
Parveen Sharma
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No
2. Whether reportable : Yes / No
7 of 7
