IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19251-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 07.03.2026 Kuldeep Singh @ Keepa ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Ms. Komal Mahindra, Advocate for Ms. Satwant Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Senior DAG, Punjab.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

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. 078 dated 08.10.2023, registered under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) and Section 29, 27-A of NDPS Act and Sections 473 and 489 of IPC (added later on) at Police Station Sarai Amant Khan, District Tarn Taran. His previous petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that on 08.10.2023, on the basis of a secret information, the petitioner, while coming on a motorcycle bearing registration number PB- 02-DB-5975 make Hero Splendor, was apprehended by a police party and recovery of 39000 intoxicant tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride, was effected from his conscious possession. Since he could not produce any valid license or permit to keep in his possession the recovered drugs, he was formally arrested at the spot. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan was presented in the Court and presently, the petitioner 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. He has been in custody since 08.10.2023. Investigation has since been completed and challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial is likely to take time as no prosecution witness has been examined so far out of total sixteen witnesses. His prolonged detention entitles him to seek bail. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. His involvement in another case cannot be made a ground for denying him the benefit of bail in the given circumstances. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be granted benefit of regular bail.

4. Custody certificate of the petitioner has 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 his criminal antecedents, 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 was found in conscious possession of the contraband on 08.10.2023. 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 has been examined so far. The petitioner has remained in custody since long. 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