CRM-M- 408844-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJABB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHH (242) CCRM-M-40844-2026 (O&M) DDate of decision : 18.08.2026 SUKHVEER SINGH ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PPUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MAANISHA BATRA Present: MMr. Ajay Pal S. Gill, Advocate foor the petitioner MMs. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjabb * *** MANISHA BBATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. TThe instant one is the second pettition preferred by the petitionerr under Sectionn 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for shortt “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in case aarising out of FIR No.82 datedd 23.07.2024 registered under Sections 21, 29 of Narcotic Drugs andd Psychotropic SSubstances Act (for short “NDPSS Act”) at Police Station Khuiann Sarwar, Distriict Fazilka. His previous petitioon bearing CRM-M-15147-20266 was dismissedd by this Court on 17.04.2026. 2. TThe aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis off allegations thaat on 23.07.2024, a secret informmation was received to the effectt that the petitiooner and accused Dimple Kumaar were involved in the businesss of sale of herooin and on that particular day, tthey were coming from Aboharr side in a swifft car. It was further informed tthat they could be apprehendedd with contrabannd. Believing the secret informaation to be true, a barricade wass laid at the infformed place. The petitioner annd accused Dimple Kumar weree AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 408844-2026 (O&M) 2 apprehended. 525 grams of heroin was reecovered from their consciouss possession whhich was kept in the car occupie d by them and which was takenn into possessioon. They were formally arrestted. On interrogation, the co--accused Dimpple Kumar suffered disclosure sstatement on the basis of whichh Gurbalraj Sinngh and Arshdeep were nominaated as additional accused andd were arrested. Investigation now stands concluuded. 3. Itt is argued by learned counsel foor the petitioner that he has beenn falsely implicaated in this case. A false recoveery has been planted upon him.. He is in custody since 23.07.2024. The chancces of conclusion of trial in nearr future are bleeak as only 02 out of 12 proosecution witnesses have beenn examined so far. His further incarceration iss not going to serve any usefull purpose. Eachh day spent by him in custoddy has furnished a reason forr extending bennefit of bail to him. His prolongeed incarceration militates againstt his fundamenntal right guaranteed under Artticle 21 of the Constitution off India. It is, theerefore, argued that the petition ddeserves to be allowed. 4. NNotice of motion. 5. LLearned State counsel has advaance notice of the petition andd while filing cuustody certificate has argued thaat keeping in view the gravity off the allegationss as levelled against the petitiooner, he does not deserve to bee extended beneefit of bail.

6. TThis Court has heard the rival submissions made by learnedd counsel for thee parties at considerable length. AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 408844-2026 (O&M) 3

7. TThe petitioner was apprehendded by the police party andd commercial quantityq of contraband had beenn recovered from his consciouss possession. The allegations against him prrima facie make out a case forr commission off the subject offences by the petiitioner. So far as the question off maintainabilityy of this petition being successiive one is concerned, it may bee mentioned thaat, an accused has a right to movve successive bail application forr grant of bail and it is the duty of the Coourt, while entertaining such aa subsequent baail application, to consider that anny fresh ground which persuadee it to take a vieew different from the one taken iin the earlier application is madee out or not. It is also required to be noted thatt every day spent by an accusedd in custody proovides a new cause of action foor filing a bail application underr certain circummstances. He cannot be kept in ccustody for indefinite period andd the bail appliccation can be considered even if iit is filed repeatedly. The deniall of bail comess with a condition that the proosecution must press for earlyy completion off the trial. The petitioner has cleaan antecedents. He is in custodyy since 23.07.20024. The trial will take consider able time to conclude. It is welll settled propossition of law that grant of bail oon account of delay in trial andd long period off incarceration is to be considerred in the light of Section 37 off the NDPS Acct. Reliance in this regard can bbe placed upon the observationss made by Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Musllim @ Hussain v. State (NCT off Delhi), 2023 SCCS OnLine SC 352, wherein iit was held that grant of bail onn account of unddue delay in trial cannot be saidd to be fettered under Section 377 of the NDPS AAct, given the imperative of Secction 436-A of Cr.P.C. which iss applicable to offence under the Act. It waas also observed that jails aree

AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 408844-2026 (O&M) 4 overcrowded aand their living conditions are, more often than not, appalling.. The danger off unjustified imprisonment is thaat inmates are more likely to bee hardened ratheer than reformed. Reliance can aalso be placed upon Manmandall and Another v. State of West Bengal, Spe cial Leave Petition (Criminal)) No.8656 of 22023 decided on 14.09.2023 aand Rabi Prakash v. State off Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533, wherein thhe Hon’ble Supreme Court hadd extended beneefit of bail to the accused who hhad been incarcerated for a longg period by obsserving that prolonged incarceraation militated against the mostt precious funddamental right guaranteed underr Article 21 of the Constitutionn and in such a situation, the constitutionall principles must override thee statutory embaargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

8. RReliance can also be placed upoon Santosh Pawar Vs. State off Chhattishgarhh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.44883/2025, wherein the Hon’blee Supreme Courrt observed that rigors of Sectionn 37 of NDPS Act will not be aa bar for consideering the case of an accused for bbail as it comes with a conditionn that the proseccution would press for an early ccompletion of trial. In the above--mentioned casse, the Hon’ble Supreme Courrt held that appellant who wass being prosecuuted for being in possession of ccommercial quantity of narcoticc substance, was entitled for bail in view of herr incarceration for a period of 199 months. 9. SSimilarly in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau off Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 prolongeed incarceration and inordinatee delay engagedd the attention of the Hon’ble Suupreme Court, which consideredd AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 408844-2026 (O&M) 5 the correct aapproach towards bail, with rrespect to several enactments,, including Secttion 37 NDPS Act. The court exxpressed the opinion that Sectionn 436A (which requires inter alia the accused too be enlarged on bail if the triall is not concludded within specified periods) off the Criminal Procedure Code,, 1973 would appply.

10. Inn the case of Ismail Khan @ PPathan vs. State of Rajasthann Crminal Appeeal No.4911 of 2025 with reg ard to recovery of commerciall quantity of nnarcotic substance, the Hon’blee Supreme Court accorded thee benefit of baill to the accused in view of proloonged incarceration for a periodd of 02 years annd 08 months of the accused. 11. OOn analyzing the peculiar facts aand circumstances of the presentt case in the ligght of the aforementioned principples of law, it transpires that thee petitioner has suffered prolonged incarcerationn for a period of 02 years and 222 days. The triaal is not likely to be concluded in near future as only 02 out off 12 prosecutionn witnesses have been examinedd so far. The continued detentionn of the petitionner is not likely to serve any fruittful purpose. There is nothing onn record to showw that if released on bail, the petiitioner will not participate in thee trial or will abbscond. 12. Inn view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion thatt a case is madee out for grant of bail to the petittioner at this stage. Accordingly,, the petition iss allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on baill subject to his furnishingf personal as well as suurety bonds to the satisfaction off the learned triaal Court/Chief Judicial Magistraate/Duty Magistrate concerned. AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 408844-2026 (O&M) 6

13. Itt is, however, clarified that the observations made above shalll not be construued as an expression of opinion oof this Court on the merits of thee case and shall not influence the outcome of thee trial in any manner. 14. SSince the main petition has been allowed, pending application, iff any, is rendereed infructuous. ((MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 18.08.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:-- Yes/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M- 408844-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJABB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHH (242) CCRM-M-40844-2026 (O&M) DDate of decision : 18.08.2026 SUKHVEER SINGH ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PPUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MAANISHA BATRA Present: MMr. Ajay Pal S. Gill, Advocate foor the petitioner MMs. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjabb * *** MANISHA BBATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. TThe instant one is the second pettition preferred by the petitionerr under Sectionn 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for shortt “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in case aarising out of FIR No.82 datedd 23.07.2024 registered under Sections 21, 29 of Narcotic Drugs andd Psychotropic SSubstances Act (for short “NDPSS Act”) at Police Station Khuiann Sarwar, Distriict Fazilka. His previous petitioon bearing CRM-M-15147-20266 was dismissedd by this Court on 17.04.2026. 2. TThe aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis off allegations thaat on 23.07.2024, a secret informmation was received to the effectt that the petitiooner and accused Dimple Kumaar were involved in the businesss of sale of herooin and on that particular day, tthey were coming from Aboharr side in a swifft car. It was further informed tthat they could be apprehendedd with contrabannd. Believing the secret informaation to be true, a barricade wass laid at the infformed place. The petitioner annd accused Dimple Kumar weree AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 408844-2026 (O&M) 2 apprehended. 525 grams of heroin was reecovered from their consciouss possession whhich was kept in the car occupie d by them and which was takenn into possessioon. They were formally arrestted. On interrogation, the co--accused Dimpple Kumar suffered disclosure sstatement on the basis of whichh Gurbalraj Sinngh and Arshdeep were nominaated as additional accused andd were arrested. Investigation now stands concluuded. 3. Itt is argued by learned counsel foor the petitioner that he has beenn falsely implicaated in this case. A false recoveery has been planted upon him.. He is in custody since 23.07.2024. The chancces of conclusion of trial in nearr future are bleeak as only 02 out of 12 proosecution witnesses have beenn examined so far. His further incarceration iss not going to serve any usefull purpose. Eachh day spent by him in custoddy has furnished a reason forr extending bennefit of bail to him. His prolongeed incarceration militates againstt his fundamenntal right guaranteed under Artticle 21 of the Constitution off India. It is, theerefore, argued that the petition ddeserves to be allowed. 4. NNotice of motion. 5. LLearned State counsel has advaance notice of the petition andd while filing cuustody certificate has argued thaat keeping in view the gravity off the allegationss as levelled against the petitiooner, he does not deserve to bee extended beneefit of bail.

6. TThis Court has heard the rival submissions made by learnedd counsel for thee parties at considerable length. AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 408844-2026 (O&M) 3

7. TThe petitioner was apprehendded by the police party andd commercial quantityq of contraband had beenn recovered from his consciouss possession. The allegations against him prrima facie make out a case forr commission off the subject offences by the petiitioner. So far as the question off maintainabilityy of this petition being successiive one is concerned, it may bee mentioned thaat, an accused has a right to movve successive bail application forr grant of bail and it is the duty of the Coourt, while entertaining such aa subsequent baail application, to consider that anny fresh ground which persuadee it to take a vieew different from the one taken iin the earlier application is madee out or not. It is also required to be noted thatt every day spent by an accusedd in custody proovides a new cause of action foor filing a bail application underr certain circummstances. He cannot be kept in ccustody for indefinite period andd the bail appliccation can be considered even if iit is filed repeatedly. The deniall of bail comess with a condition that the proosecution must press for earlyy completion off the trial. The petitioner has cleaan antecedents. He is in custodyy since 23.07.20024. The trial will take consider able time to conclude. It is welll settled propossition of law that grant of bail oon account of delay in trial andd long period off incarceration is to be considerred in the light of Section 37 off the NDPS Acct. Reliance in this regard can bbe placed upon the observationss made by Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Musllim @ Hussain v. State (NCT off Delhi), 2023 SCCS OnLine SC 352, wherein iit was held that grant of bail onn account of unddue delay in trial cannot be saidd to be fettered under Section 377 of the NDPS AAct, given the imperative of Secction 436-A of Cr.P.C. which iss applicable to offence under the Act. It waas also observed that jails aree

AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 408844-2026 (O&M) 4 overcrowded aand their living conditions are, more often than not, appalling.. The danger off unjustified imprisonment is thaat inmates are more likely to bee hardened ratheer than reformed. Reliance can aalso be placed upon Manmandall and Another v. State of West Bengal, Spe cial Leave Petition (Criminal)) No.8656 of 22023 decided on 14.09.2023 aand Rabi Prakash v. State off Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533, wherein thhe Hon’ble Supreme Court hadd extended beneefit of bail to the accused who hhad been incarcerated for a longg period by obsserving that prolonged incarceraation militated against the mostt precious funddamental right guaranteed underr Article 21 of the Constitutionn and in such a situation, the constitutionall principles must override thee statutory embaargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

8. RReliance can also be placed upoon Santosh Pawar Vs. State off Chhattishgarhh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.44883/2025, wherein the Hon’blee Supreme Courrt observed that rigors of Sectionn 37 of NDPS Act will not be aa bar for consideering the case of an accused for bbail as it comes with a conditionn that the proseccution would press for an early ccompletion of trial. In the above--mentioned casse, the Hon’ble Supreme Courrt held that appellant who wass being prosecuuted for being in possession of ccommercial quantity of narcoticc substance, was entitled for bail in view of herr incarceration for a period of 199 months. 9. SSimilarly in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau off Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 prolongeed incarceration and inordinatee delay engagedd the attention of the Hon’ble Suupreme Court, which consideredd AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 408844-2026 (O&M) 5 the correct aapproach towards bail, with rrespect to several enactments,, including Secttion 37 NDPS Act. The court exxpressed the opinion that Sectionn 436A (which requires inter alia the accused too be enlarged on bail if the triall is not concludded within specified periods) off the Criminal Procedure Code,, 1973 would appply.

10. Inn the case of Ismail Khan @ PPathan vs. State of Rajasthann Crminal Appeeal No.4911 of 2025 with reg ard to recovery of commerciall quantity of nnarcotic substance, the Hon’blee Supreme Court accorded thee benefit of baill to the accused in view of proloonged incarceration for a periodd of 02 years annd 08 months of the accused. 11. OOn analyzing the peculiar facts aand circumstances of the presentt case in the ligght of the aforementioned principples of law, it transpires that thee petitioner has suffered prolonged incarcerationn for a period of 02 years and 222 days. The triaal is not likely to be concluded in near future as only 02 out off 12 prosecutionn witnesses have been examinedd so far. The continued detentionn of the petitionner is not likely to serve any fruittful purpose. There is nothing onn record to showw that if released on bail, the petiitioner will not participate in thee trial or will abbscond. 12. Inn view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion thatt a case is madee out for grant of bail to the petittioner at this stage. Accordingly,, the petition iss allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on baill subject to his furnishingf personal as well as suurety bonds to the satisfaction off the learned triaal Court/Chief Judicial Magistraate/Duty Magistrate concerned. AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 408844-2026 (O&M) 6

13. Itt is, however, clarified that the observations made above shalll not be construued as an expression of opinion oof this Court on the merits of thee case and shall not influence the outcome of thee trial in any manner. 14. SSince the main petition has been allowed, pending application, iff any, is rendereed infructuous. ((MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 18.08.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:-- Yes/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.