IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

236 Date of Decision: 10.02.2026 Pankaj @ Pankaj Kumar ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Ms. Manjot Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State.

***

MANISHA BATRA , J. (Oral)

1. The present one is the third petition as filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking concession of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.438 dated 23.06.2023, registered under Section 18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station Thanesar Sadar, District Kurukshetra.

2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that eversince the dismissal of his previous petitions, the trial has not progressed much since only 01 out of 17 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. There are no chances of conclusion of the same in near future. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody any more. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

3. Status report has been filed. It is argued by learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail. It is also argued that the petition being a successive one is not maintainable.

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

5. The petitioner is in custody since 23.06.2023. The allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of subject offence against him. However, 01 out of 17 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 placed upon Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025, which is a recently pronounced verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court observing that rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act will not be a bar for considering the case of an accused for bail as it comes with a condition that the prosecution would press for an early completion of trial. In the abovementioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that appellant who was being prosecuted for being in possession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, was entitled for bail in view of her incarceration for a period of 19 months.

7. Similarly in another case i.e. in the case of Satend