[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satvinder Singh @ Sati vs State Of Haryana on 23 March, 2026
CRM-M-65188-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-65188-2025 (O&M)
Harjinder Singh @ Kaka ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
Sr. No. Particulars Details
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 19.03.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 23.03.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 23.03.2026
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. Davneet Sangwan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the
petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
for grant of regular bail to him in case arising out of FIR No. 422 dated
03.09.2024, registered under Sections 22(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') at Police
Station Sadar Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar. His previous petition
was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.07.2025.
1 of 6
CRM-M-65188-2025 (O&M) -2-
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present
petition are that on 02.09.2024, on the basis of a secret information, the
petitioner and co-accused Satvinder Singh @ Sati, while coming on a
motorcycle bearing registration number HR-51-3261, were apprehended by
a police party and recovery of 14940 intoxicant tablets of Lomotil containing
Diphenoxylate and 360 intoxicant capsules containing Tramadol was
effected from their conscious possession. Since they could not produce any
valid license or permit to keep in their possession the recovered drugs, there
were formally arrested at the spot. The recovered contraband and the said
motorcycle were taken into possession by the police. During interrogation,
the petitioner and co-accused disclosed that they had procured the recovered
contraband from co-accused Ashish @ Akhil and Dinesh Kumar, who were
also nominated as such. Some other persons were also nominated
subsequently and arrested in this case. After completion of necessary
investigation and usual formalities, challan was presented in the Court and
presently, the petitioner along with the co-accused is facing trial for
commission of aforementioned offences.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has
been falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery was planted upon him
and the co-accused. He has clean antecedents. He is in custody since
03.09.2024. Investigation has since been completed and challan has been
filed. Conclusion of trial is likely to take time as no prosecution witness out
of total forty witnesses has been examined so far. His prolonged detention
entitles him to seek bail. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him
in custody anymore. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be
allowed and the petitioner deserves to be granted benefit of regular bail.
2 of 6
CRM-M-65188-2025 (O&M) -3-
4. Status report and the custody certificate have been filed by the
respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the
gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner as well as the fact
that commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from him, he is not
entitled to get benefit of bail as rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would
be attracted against him. The petitioner may abscond or involve in
committing similar offences again, if extended benefit of bail. Hence, it is
urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. This Court has heard the rival submissions.
6. As per the allegations, the petitioner along with the co-accused
was found in conscious possession of commercial quantity of contraband on
02.09.2024. Though, the allegations prima facie make out a case for
commission of subject offences against the petitioner, however, on a perusal
of the record, it is apparent that there are no chances of conclusion of the
trial in near future and it will take considerable time as no prosecution
witness out of total forty witnesses has been examined so far. The petitioner
has remained in custody since long. He has clean antecedents. 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.
3 of 6
CRM-M-65188-2025 (O&M) -4-
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 of India 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 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 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, 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
4 of 6
CRM-M-65188-2025 (O&M) -5-
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 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 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 analysing 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 as mentioned above, the trial
is not likely to be concluded in near future as no prosecution witness out of
total forty witnesses has been examined so far. The petitioner has clean
antecedents. In view thereof, this Court is of the considered opinion that 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 or indulge in similar
offences. Every day spent by an accused in custody provides 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 right of the accused with the requirements of
the criminal justice system. Prolonged detention itself is a ground for
reconsideration of bail since settled proposition of law is that detention prior
5 of 6
CRM-M-65188-2025 (O&M) -6-
to trial should not become punitive. 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 has been 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.
12. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only
for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no
bearing on the merits of the case.
23.03.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
