IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:11.02.2026 Kulwant Singh ... Petitioner Vs.

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

Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.

...

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

1. 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.117, dated 02.08.2023, registered under Sections 18, 25, 29 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Barnala, District Barnala.

2. As per the allegations, on 02.08.2023, on the basis of a secret information, the petitioner along with co-accused Ranjodh Singh @ Jodha was apprehended along with a truck bearing registration No.PB-07-BQ-9958 and recovery of 12 kgs of opium was effected from the truck. 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, which is not direct recovery from him but was allegedly made from the truck. He is in custody for a period of over 02 years and 06 months and 07 days. Only 05 out of 25 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. The delay in conclusion of trial is a sufficient ground to extend benefit of bail to him. His continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. He has clean antecedents. With these broad submissions, it is, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Status report and custody certificate have been filed. It is argued by learned State counsel that commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and co-accused. Rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in this case. There are chances of the petitioner's absconding or committing similar offences if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail.

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

6. The petitioner is in custody since 02.08.2023 i.e. for a period of over 02 years, 06 months and 07 days. It is apparent from the record that there are bleak chances of conclusion of trial in near future since as many as 20 prosecution witnesses still remain to be examined. 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.

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