IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 27^th January, 2026 Anil Paswan @ Anil Pasawan ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Angad Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 236 dated 28.08.2024 registered under Sections 20(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) (Section 29 of NDPS Act and Section 317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) added later on) at Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar.

2. As per the allegations, on 28.08.2024, recovery of 1 kg and 50 grams of charas was effected from the conscious possession of the present petitioner and the co-accused, when they were apprehended by the police officials while riding on a motor bike. The recovered contraband was taken into possession. The petitioner and co-accused were formally arrested.

Investigation now stands concluded.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. No recovery has been effected from his conscious possession. The recovery was allegedly effected from the bag in personal possession of co-accused Rekha. He was merely a pillion rider and had no knowledge about the co-accused being in possession of contraband. He is in custody since long. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. He has clean antecedents. The alleged recovery is marginally above than commercial quantity. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Status report and custody certificate have been filed by respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner and the fact that the commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from the petitioner and the co-accused as well as the fact that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in the present case, the petitioner does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail.

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

6. The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have been found in conscious possession of contraband which is marginally above the commercial quantity. He is in custody for a period of about one year and five months. He does not have any criminal antecedents. There are bleak chances of conclusion of the trial in near future. 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 the Act. It was also observed that jails are overcrowded and their living conditions are, more often than not, appalling. The danger of unjustified imprisonment is that inmates are more likely to be hardened rather than reformed. Reliance can also be placed upon 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 110, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had extended benefit of bail to the accused who had been incarcerated for a long period by observing that prolonged incarceration militated against the most precious fundamental right guarantee