IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36456-2025 Date of decision: 11.02.2026 PAWAN KUMAR ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Gursimranjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amritpal Singh Gill, DAG Punjab.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.85 dated 12.06.2024 registered under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station City Khanna, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1).

2. Brief facts of the present case, as per the prosecution, are that on 12.06.2024, ASI Hakam Singh along with his fellow police officials on the basis of secret information, apprehended the petitioner. On search, the petitioner was found in conscious possession of 180 kgs of poppy husk.

Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. He further contends that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with at the time of alleged search and seizure. He argued that the recovery of alleged contraband has already been effected from the petitioner and nothing more is to be recovered from him. The petitioner is in custody since 12.06.2024. The investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented and charges have also been framed, out of 15 prosecution witnesses none has been examined. He further submits that the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Learned State counsel who has appeared on advance notice has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature and that he was apprehended at the spot with the alleged contraband, which falls under the commercial quantity. He has further submitted that the petitioner is involved in one more case, meaning thereby he is a habitual offender.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 01 year and 07 months, investigation is complete; challan stands presented; charges have also been framed; out of 15 prosecution witnesses none has been examined and the fact that trial may take a long time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in further custody. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7. Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement of her right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is against the principle “bail is a rule” and “jail is an exception”.

8. A two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Nandlal Mondal @ Abhay Mondal v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.12788/2023, granted bail to the accused after 18 months of incarceration on the ground of delay in trial in an NDPS matter involving commercial quantity of contraband. Similar relief has been granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a series of judgments, namely: Md. Aliul Islam @ Aliul Islam @ Alius v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No. 736/2024; Debrata Mondal v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.14970/2023; Santarul Islam @ Santa v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.13169/2023; In