IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-64460-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 24.03.2026 Sushant Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. G. S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, 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. 76 dated 13.03.2024, registered under Sections 22(b), 22-C and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Civil Lines, Batala, District Gurdaspur. His previous petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that on 13.03.2024, on the basis of a secret information, the petitioner was apprehended by a police party and recovery of 5000 intoxicant tablets containing 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. Upon interrogation, he disclosed that he had procured the recovered contraband from one Mukhwak Singh, who was also nominated in this case as an accused. He was also arrested on the same day and recovery of 100 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride was effected from him. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan was presented in the Court and presently, the petitioner along with the co-accused 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 clean antecedents. He is in custody since 13.03.2024. Investigation has since been completed and challan has been filed. Conclusion of trial is likely to take time as only 04 out of total 13 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. His prolonged detention entitles him to seek bail. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be granted benefit of regular bail.

4. Status report and the custody certificate have 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 the fact that commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from him, 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 commercial quantity of the aforementioned contraband on 13.03.2024. 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 a substantive number of the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. 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