CRM-M-24088--2026 (O&M) 1 IN THEE HIGH COURT OF PUNJABB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHH (232) CRM-M-24088-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.07.20266 SARWAN SINGGH @ SAMMA ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HOON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANNISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Harpal Singh Sidhu, Advocate ffor the petitioner Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab **** MANISHA BATTRA, J. (ORAL) 1. Thee instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sectionn 483 of Bharatiyaa Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20223 (for short “BNSS”) for grantt of regular bail iin case arising out of FIR No. 47 dated 17.04.2024 registeredd under Sections 221, 27A and 29 of Narcotic Druggs and Psychotropic Substancess Act (for short “NNDPS Act”) and Section 201 off IPC at Police Station Sujanpur,, District Pathankoot. 2. As pper the allegations, on 17.04.20024, while performing patrollingg duty, the police officials stopped an Innova carr. One of the occupants of thee vehicle threw a plastic envelope out of the vehhicle. Both the occupants weree apprehended. OOn conducting search, it was fouund that the envelope so thrown,, was containing aa sum of Rs.5 lakhs. Apart fromm that, 15 grams of heroin wass found kept separrately in a polythene envelope which was recovered from thee conscious possesssion of both of them. On askinng they disclosed their names ass AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.10 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-24088--2026 (O&M) 2

Gurjant Singh @@ Ravi and Simranjit Singh @@ Nikka. They were formallyy arrested. The reecovered contraband and money was taken into possession. Onn interrogation, theey suffered disclosure statementts admitting involvement in thee crime. Recoverry of 8.304 KGs of heroin waas subsequently effected at thee instance of the c o-accused Gurjant Singh @ Ravvi and Simranjit Singh @ Nikkaa on 20.04.2024 frrom an Innova vehicle. Recoveered contraband had been takenn into possession. On the basis of their disclosuure statements, accused Harpall Singh @ Bittu annd Jaspreet Singh were nominat ed as additional accused as theyy were alleged to bbe involved in smuggling of herooin.

3. As per the further allegations, onn 27.04.2024, accused Gurjantt Singh @ Ravi suuffered another disclosure statemment to the effect that on askingg of accused Harppal Singh @ Bittu, he had gone to co-accused Simranjit Singh,, who further discclosed that the present petitionerr had reached there in his Vernaa Car and had hannded over a bag containing Rs.244 lakhs for bringing heroin fromm Srinagar and thaat previously also the petitionerr had given an amount of Rs.55 lakhs to them aand they had delivered 5 Kg oof heroin. The petitioner wass nominated as an accused. He was apprehended on 30.04.2024. He too sufferedd disclosure statemment admitting his involvement iin the crime. On his disclosure,, drug money of RRs.5 lakh had been recovered froom his car which was taken intoo custody. Some oother persons were nominated ass an accused. Investigation noww stands completedd. 4. It iss argued by learned counsel forr the petitioner that he has beenn falsely implicateed in this case. He was not naamed in the FIR and has beenn AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.10 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-24088--2026 (O&M) 3

nominated on thhe basis of disclosure statement of co-accused which cannot bee considered to be admissible in evidence. False rrecovery of cash amount of Rs.55 lakhs has been pplanted upon him. He is in cusstody since long. There are noo chances of concllusion of trial in the near future aas only 03 out of 30 prosecutionn witnesses have bbeen examined so far. He is noot involved in any other case off similar nature. His involvement in other casess cannot be considered to be aa reason for denyinng benefit of bail to him. He is ready to abide by the terms andd conditions to b e imposed upon him. The cco-accused have already beenn extended benefitt of bail. On parity, he too desserves to be extended the samee benefit. It is, theerefore, argued that the petition ddeserve to be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the statuss report has arguedd that keeping in view the graviity of the allegations as levelledd against the petitiioner and his antecedents, he doees not deserve to be released onn bail. There are chances of his absconding or ccommitting similar offences, iff extended benefitt of bail. It is, therefore, arggued that the petition does nott deserve to be alloowed. 6. Thiss Court has heard the rival submmissions made by learned counsell for the parties at considerable length.

7. Thee petitioner is alleged to be indulged in the business off transporting of ccontraband from Srinagar to Punnjab. Recovery of Rs.5 lakhs ass drug money hass been stated to be effected froom him. The allegations primaa facie make out hhis complicity in the crime, how ever, he is in custody for over aa period of 02 yearrs and 02 months. There are no chances of conclusion of trial inn AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.10 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-24088--2026 (O&M) 4

the near future. It is well settled proposition of llaw that grant of bail on accountt of delay in trial and long period of incarcerationn is to be considered in the lightt of Section 37 off the NDPS Act. Reliance in thiss regard can be placed upon thee observations maade by Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of DDelhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 3552, wherein it was held that grantt of bail on accouunt of undue delay in trial cannnot be said to be fettered underr Section 37 of thee NDPS Act, given the imperatiive of Section 436-A of Cr.P.C.. which is applicabble to offence under the Act. It was also observed that jails aree overcrowded andd their living conditions are, morre often than not, appalling. Thee danger of unjusstified imprisonment is that innmates are more likely to bee hardened rather than reformed. Reliance can alsso be placed upon Manmandall and Another v.. State of West Bengal, Speccial Leave Petition (Criminal)) No.8656 of 20233 decided on 14.09.2023 and Raabi Prakash v. State of Odisha,, 2023 LiveLaw ((SC) 533, wherein the Hon’blee Supreme Court had extendedd benefit of bail too the accused who had been in carcerated for a long period byy observing that pprolonged incarceration militatted against the most preciouss fundamental righht guaranteed under Article 21 oof the Constitution and in such aa situation, the coonstitutional principles must ooverride the statutory embargoo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

8. Reliiance can also be placed uponn Santosh Pawar Vs. State off Chhattishgarh & Anr., Criminal Appeal NNo.4883/2025, wherein it wass observed by Hoon’ble Supreme Court observinng that rigors of Section 37 off NDPS Act will nnot be a bar for considering the case of an accused for bail as itt comes with a conndition that the prosecution wouuld press for an early completionn AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.10 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-24088--2026 (O&M) 5 of trial. In the above-mentioned case, the Honn’ble Supreme Court held thatt appellant who wwas being prosecuted for beingg in possession of commerciall quantity of narcootic substance, was entitled for bbail in view of her incarcerationn for a period of 199 months. 9. Simmilarly in case of Satender Kummar Antil v. Central Bureau off Investigation, (22022) 10 SCC 51 prolonged inccarceration and inordinate delayy engaged the atteention of the Hon’ble Supremee Court, which considered thee correct approachh towards bail, with respect too several enactments, includingg Section 37 NDPPS Act. The court expressed tthe opinion that Section 436AA (which requires inter alia the accused to be enllarged on bail if the trial is nott concluded withiin specified periods) of the C riminal Procedure Code, 1973 would apply.

10. In tthe case of Ismail Khan @ PPathan vs. State of Rajasthann Crminal Appeall No.4911 of 2025 with regaard to recovery of commerciall quantity of narcootic substance, the Hon’ble Suprreme Court accorded the benefitt of bail to the acccused in view of prolonged incarrceration for a period of 02 yearss and 08 months of the accused. 11. Simmilar benefit has been extended iin SLP No.15699-2025 titled ass Ebrahim @ Ibrrahim SK vs. The State of WWest Bengal and in the case off Pamesh Arora vvs. UT Chandigarh, Criminal Apppeal No.4872 of 2025. 12. On analyzing the peculiar facts annd circumstances of the presentt case in the lightt of the aforementioned principlles of law, it transpires that thee AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.10 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-24088--2026 (O&M) 6 petitioner has su ffered prolonged incarceration fofor a period of over 02 years andd 02 months. The trial is not likely to be concludded in near future as only 03 outt of 30 prosecutiion witnesses have been exammined so far. The continuedd detention of the petitioner is not likely to servee any fruitful purpose. There iss nothing on recoord to show that if released oon bail, the petitioner will nott participate in thee trial or will abscond.

13. In vview of the above discussion, th is Court is of the opinion that aa case is made outt for grant of bail to the petitioneer at this stage. Accordingly, thee petition is alloweed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject too his furnishing peersonal as well as surety bonds tto the satisfaction of the learnedd trial Court/Chieff Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magisstrate concerned. 14. It iss made clear that any observationn made herein above is only forr the purpose of ddeciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearingg on the merits of tthe case. 15. Sincce the main petition has been aallowed, pending application, iff any, is rendered iinfructuous. (MMANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 10.07.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yees/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.10 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M-24088--2026 (O&M) 1 IN THEE HIGH COURT OF PUNJABB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHH (232) CRM-M-24088-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.07.20266 SARWAN SINGGH @ SAMMA ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HOON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANNISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Harpal Singh Sidhu, Advocate ffor the petitioner Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab **** MANISHA BATTRA, J. (ORAL) 1. Thee instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sectionn 483 of Bharatiyaa Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20223 (for short “BNSS”) for grantt of regular bail iin case arising out of FIR No. 47 dated 17.04.2024 registeredd under Sections 221, 27A and 29 of Narcotic Druggs and Psychotropic Substancess Act (for short “NNDPS Act”) and Section 201 off IPC at Police Station Sujanpur,, District Pathankoot. 2. As pper the allegations, on 17.04.20024, while performing patrollingg duty, the police officials stopped an Innova carr. One of the occupants of thee vehicle threw a plastic envelope out of the vehhicle. Both the occupants weree apprehended. OOn conducting search, it was fouund that the envelope so thrown,, was containing aa sum of Rs.5 lakhs. Apart fromm that, 15 grams of heroin wass found kept separrately in a polythene envelope which was recovered from thee conscious possesssion of both of them. On askinng they disclosed their names ass AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.10 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-24088--2026 (O&M) 2

Gurjant Singh @@ Ravi and Simranjit Singh @@ Nikka. They were formallyy arrested. The reecovered contraband and money was taken into possession. Onn interrogation, theey suffered disclosure statementts admitting involvement in thee crime. Recoverry of 8.304 KGs of heroin waas subsequently effected at thee instance of the c o-accused Gurjant Singh @ Ravvi and Simranjit Singh @ Nikkaa on 20.04.2024 frrom an Innova vehicle. Recoveered contraband had been takenn into possession. On the basis of their disclosuure statements, accused Harpall Singh @ Bittu annd Jaspreet Singh were nominat ed as additional accused as theyy were alleged to bbe involved in smuggling of herooin.

3. As per the further allegations, onn 27.04.2024, accused Gurjantt Singh @ Ravi suuffered another disclosure statemment to the effect that on askingg of accused Harppal Singh @ Bittu, he had gone to co-accused Simranjit Singh,, who further discclosed that the present petitionerr had reached there in his Vernaa Car and had hannded over a bag containing Rs.244 lakhs for bringing heroin fromm Srinagar and thaat previously also the petitionerr had given an amount of Rs.55 lakhs to them aand they had delivered 5 Kg oof heroin. The petitioner wass nominated as an accused. He was apprehended on 30.04.2024. He too sufferedd disclosure statemment admitting his involvement iin the crime. On his disclosure,, drug money of RRs.5 lakh had been recovered froom his car which was taken intoo custody. Some oother persons were nominated ass an accused. Investigation noww stands completedd. 4. It iss argued by learned counsel forr the petitioner that he has beenn falsely implicateed in this case. He was not naamed in the FIR and has beenn AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.10 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-24088--2026 (O&M) 3

nominated on thhe basis of disclosure statement of co-accused which cannot bee considered to be admissible in evidence. False rrecovery of cash amount of Rs.55 lakhs has been pplanted upon him. He is in cusstody since long. There are noo chances of concllusion of trial in the near future aas only 03 out of 30 prosecutionn witnesses have bbeen examined so far. He is noot involved in any other case off similar nature. His involvement in other casess cannot be considered to be aa reason for denyinng benefit of bail to him. He is ready to abide by the terms andd conditions to b e imposed upon him. The cco-accused have already beenn extended benefitt of bail. On parity, he too desserves to be extended the samee benefit. It is, theerefore, argued that the petition ddeserve to be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the statuss report has arguedd that keeping in view the graviity of the allegations as levelledd against the petitiioner and his antecedents, he doees not deserve to be released onn bail. There are chances of his absconding or ccommitting similar offences, iff extended benefitt of bail. It is, therefore, arggued that the petition does nott deserve to be alloowed. 6. Thiss Court has heard the rival submmissions made by learned counsell for the parties at considerable length.

7. Thee petitioner is alleged to be indulged in the business off transporting of ccontraband from Srinagar to Punnjab. Recovery of Rs.5 lakhs ass drug money hass been stated to be effected froom him. The allegations primaa facie make out hhis complicity in the crime, how ever, he is in custody for over aa period of 02 yearrs and 02 months. There are no chances of conclusion of trial inn AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.10 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-24088--2026 (O&M) 4

the near future. It is well settled proposition of llaw that grant of bail on accountt of delay in trial and long period of incarcerationn is to be considered in the lightt of Section 37 off the NDPS Act. Reliance in thiss regard can be placed upon thee observations maade by Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of DDelhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 3552, wherein it was held that grantt of bail on accouunt of undue delay in trial cannnot be said to be fettered underr Section 37 of thee NDPS Act, given the imperatiive of Section 436-A of Cr.P.C.. which is applicabble to offence under the Act. It was also observed that jails aree overcrowded andd their living conditions are, morre often than not, appalling. Thee danger of unjusstified imprisonment is that innmates are more likely to bee hardened rather than reformed. Reliance can alsso be placed upon Manmandall and Another v.. State of West Bengal, Speccial Leave Petition (Criminal)) No.8656 of 20233 decided on 14.09.2023 and Raabi Prakash v. State of Odisha,, 2023 LiveLaw ((SC) 533, wherein the Hon’blee Supreme Court had extendedd benefit of bail too the accused who had been in carcerated for a long period byy observing that pprolonged incarceration militatted against the most preciouss fundamental righht guaranteed under Article 21 oof the Constitution and in such aa situation, the coonstitutional principles must ooverride the statutory embargoo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

8. Reliiance can also be placed uponn Santosh Pawar Vs. State off Chhattishgarh & Anr., Criminal Appeal NNo.4883/2025, wherein it wass observed by Hoon’ble Supreme Court observinng that rigors of Section 37 off NDPS Act will nnot be a bar for considering the case of an accused for bail as itt comes with a conndition that the prosecution wouuld press for an early completionn AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.10 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-24088--2026 (O&M) 5 of trial. In the above-mentioned case, the Honn’ble Supreme Court held thatt appellant who wwas being prosecuted for beingg in possession of commerciall quantity of narcootic substance, was entitled for bbail in view of her incarcerationn for a period of 199 months. 9. Simmilarly in case of Satender Kummar Antil v. Central Bureau off Investigation, (22022) 10 SCC 51 prolonged inccarceration and inordinate delayy engaged the atteention of the Hon’ble Supremee Court, which considered thee correct approachh towards bail, with respect too several enactments, includingg Section 37 NDPPS Act. The court expressed tthe opinion that Section 436AA (which requires inter alia the accused to be enllarged on bail if the trial is nott concluded withiin specified periods) of the C riminal Procedure Code, 1973 would apply.

10. In tthe case of Ismail Khan @ PPathan vs. State of Rajasthann Crminal Appeall No.4911 of 2025 with regaard to recovery of commerciall quantity of narcootic substance, the Hon’ble Suprreme Court accorded the benefitt of bail to the acccused in view of prolonged incarrceration for a period of 02 yearss and 08 months of the accused. 11. Simmilar benefit has been extended iin SLP No.15699-2025 titled ass Ebrahim @ Ibrrahim SK vs. The State of WWest Bengal and in the case off Pamesh Arora vvs. UT Chandigarh, Criminal Apppeal No.4872 of 2025. 12. On analyzing the peculiar facts annd circumstances of the presentt case in the lightt of the aforementioned principlles of law, it transpires that thee AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.10 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-24088--2026 (O&M) 6 petitioner has su ffered prolonged incarceration fofor a period of over 02 years andd 02 months. The trial is not likely to be concludded in near future as only 03 outt of 30 prosecutiion witnesses have been exammined so far. The continuedd detention of the petitioner is not likely to servee any fruitful purpose. There iss nothing on recoord to show that if released oon bail, the petitioner will nott participate in thee trial or will abscond.

13. In vview of the above discussion, th is Court is of the opinion that aa case is made outt for grant of bail to the petitioneer at this stage. Accordingly, thee petition is alloweed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject too his furnishing peersonal as well as surety bonds tto the satisfaction of the learnedd trial Court/Chieff Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magisstrate concerned. 14. It iss made clear that any observationn made herein above is only forr the purpose of ddeciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearingg on the merits of tthe case. 15. Sincce the main petition has been aallowed, pending application, iff any, is rendered iinfructuous. (MMANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 10.07.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yees/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.10 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.