IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

206 CRM-M-2825-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.01.2026 Anil ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present : Mr. Rahul Kadian, Advocate for the petitioner (cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:1)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:16)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:18)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:6)(cid:21)(cid:5)(cid:22)

*****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.38 dated 07.07.2023, registered under Section 21(c) of NDPS Act at Police Station Bajakhana, District Faridkot.

2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for 2 years and more than 6 months. The alleged recovery of 400 grams of Heroin was effected from the arm rest of the driver and co-passenger seat, thus it is thus debatable that he is in conscious possession thereof. No independent witness was joined at the time of recovery. Charges have been framed on 21.03.2024, however, out of 15 prosecution witnesses, only 2 have been examined. The petitioner is involved in 1 more case in Hanumangarh, wherein he is on bail. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382.

3. The custody certificate filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars 2 years, 6 months and

10 days.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the petitioner, who was apprehended at the spot. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage and the petitioner being on bail in another case.

5. Heard.

6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (Supra)had held that, “As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc.”

7. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in Shariful Islam @ Sarif versus The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.4173/2022, decided on 04.08.2022, granted bail to the petitioner in a case of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, considering incarceration for over 1 year and 6 months and there being no likelihood of completion of trial in the near future, while the Division Bench of this Court in Bhupender Singh vs. Narcotic Control Bureau (2022) 2 RCR (Crl.) 706, observed with regard to achieving balance between right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act.

8. This Court in the case of Balraj Singh vs. State of Punjab CRM-M- 57386-2022, on 14.12.2022 has followed the dictum laid down by Hon'ble The Supreme Court and granted the bail to the petitioner therein after he had undergone total custody of 1 year and 6 months and in Munasi Masih vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-31504-2022, on 06.2.2023, wherein commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered but only 2 out of 13 PWs had been examined, allowed bail.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 2 years, 6 months and 10 days; on bail in another case; charges were framed 21.03.2024, however, there are still 1U+0033 more prosecution witnesses remaining, the trial is likely to take a considerable time; further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in mind