IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 27.02.2026 Pronounced on : 06.03.2026 Sumit Yadav ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Lathwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

This petition for bail is the second petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.50 dated 13.03.2024, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’, (final report submitted under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act and Section 120-B of IPC), Police Station Rai, District Sonipat.

2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘SI Naveen Kumar’, who reported that while leading a team of police officials, deputed for patrolling duty, on the basis of a tip-off given by a reliable source, the petitioner was intercepted and from the polythene bag being carried by him, 01 kg 900 gms of charas was recovered.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were performed, and further investigation taken up.

4. Heard.

5. The record has been perused carefully.

6. Since the recovered contraband in the present case comes within the ambit of commercial quantity, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State’ (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352 are relevant. In the abovementioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has 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 which is applicable to offences under the Act.

7. In this regard it is also relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘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 1109, extended the benefit of bail to the accused, who had been incarcerated for a period of almost 2-3 years and the trial was likely to take considerable time. The above-mentioned benefit has been given by observing that prolonged incarceration generally militates 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.

8. In addition to above, in a recently pronounced verdict in the case of ‘Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr.’ Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed 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.

9. 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India expressed the opinion that Section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the tr