IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 10.02.2026 KULWINDER SINGH @ KIDDI ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Roja Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab **** (cid:1)

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.10 dated 07.02.2024 registered under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS”) at Police Station Rajpura, District Patiala.

2. As per the allegations, on 07.02.2024, a bus was stopped by the Police officials for checking purpose. Two persons alighted from the same. They were carrying a brown colour bag. On noticing the Police officials, they started walking with fast paces. They were apprehended on the basis of suspicion. The petitioner was one of them. The person accompanying him disclosed his name as Palwinder Singh @ Billa. On conducting search of the bag, 54,000 intoxicating tablets marked with label of Lomotil were found kept in the bag carried by the petitioner which were taken into possession. The petitioner and co-accused were formally arrested. Investigation now stands completed.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery has been planted upon him. The mandatory provisions of the NDPS had not been complied with at the time of effecting the alleged recovery. He is in custody since long. There are no chances of conclusion of trial in the near future. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. His antecedents are clean. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be released on bail.

4. Status report and custody certificate have been filed. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations coupled with the fact that the ingredients of Section 37 of NDPS Act are attracted in this case, the petitioner does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail.

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties at considerable length.

6. The petitioner is in custody for a period of 01 year, 11 months and 28 days. Trial will obviously take time to conclude as only 03 witnesses have been examined so far. 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 LiveLaw (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.(cid:1)

7. Reliance can also be placed upon Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025,