IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:02.02.2026 Anil Kumar ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Abhaysher Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

...

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

1. Instant one is the 3^rd petition as filed by the petitioner seeking benefit of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.150 dated 12.09.2023, registered under Section 22(c) of the NDPS, at Police Station City Sri Muktsar Sahib, Amritsar, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, on the allegations that on the intervening night of 11.09.2023, he was found in conscious possession of 40 intoxicant tablets of Etazip-MP with total weight of 59.6 grams, which were found to be of commercial quantity. The recovered contraband was taken into custody. Petitioner was formally arrested. His previous petitions had been dismissed by this Court vide orders dated

17.02.2025 and 11.08.2025 respectively.

2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that ever since the dismissal of the second petition for grant of regular bail as filed by the petitioner, the trial has not progressed much since only 01 out of 11 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. There are no chances of conclusion of the trial in near future. Prolonged incarceration of the petitioner without any possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is against the fundamental right of liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished a reason to him to seek benefit of bail afresh.

3. Respondent/State has not filed reply despite an effective opportunity having been granted. However, custody certificate of the petitioner has been filed and it is argued by learned State counsel that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner and coupled with the fact that his previous petitions have been dismissed, the instant petition does not deserve to be allowed.

4. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

5. The petitioner is alleged to have been found in conscious possession of commercial quantity of contraband. The allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of subject offence against him. However, the petitioner is in custody for a period of 02 years, 04 months and 17 days. Only 01 out of 11 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. Meaning thereby that there are no 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 Live Law (SC) 533, 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 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.

6. Reliance can also be pl