1. Bail plea under NDPS Act for recovery of non-commercial quantity of heroin — Custody for over 7 months. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 9240
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
H.S. Grewal, J
Yadwinder Singh Alias Sunny – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-17382-2026
Important Points
Bail may be granted in NDPS cases involving non-commercial quantities where there is prolonged detention, lack of trial progress, and parity with a co-accused, provided the ends of justice are served.
Subject
Criminal - Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Bail - NDPS Act - Grant of regular bail - Where the recovered quantity is non-commercial, the petitioner has been in custody for over seven months, no prosecution witnesses have been examined, and a co-accused has already been granted bail, the detention is not justified during the pendency of trial. (Para 3, 6)
(B) Procedural Compliance - Recovery from public place - Absence of independent witnesses and alleged non-compliance of mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act are valid grounds to consider the grant of bail in cases of non-commercial quantity. (Para 3)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to the concession of regular bail considering the quantity of contraband and the period of detention.
(B) Procedural Compliance - Recovery from public place - Absence of independent witnesses and alleged non-compliance of mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act are valid grounds to consider the grant of bail in cases of non-commercial quantity. (Para 3)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to the concession of regular bail considering the quantity of contraband and the period of detention.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Tanvir Singh Grewal
For the Respondents: Surinderjit Singh Nahar
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Tanvir Singh Grewal
For the Respondents: Surinderjit Singh Nahar
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued false implication and non-compliance of NDPS Act provisions; State opposed bail. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Court considered custody duration, co-accused's bail, and that trial would take long time. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. Section 37 NDPS Act not attracted for non-commercial quantity; prolonged detention without trial progress justifies bail. (Para 6 )
5. Petition allowed; petitioner granted regular bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds. (Para 7 , 8 )
6. Is Section 37 of the NDPS Act applicable to recoveries of non-commercial quantity?
No, Section 37's stringent bail conditions are not attracted for non-commercial quantity recoveries under the NDPS Act. (Para 3 , 6 )
7. Can prolonged custody pending trial without witness examination justify bail in NDPS cases?
Yes, prolonged custody over 7 months with no prosecution witness examined, making trial likely to take long, justifies grant of bail. (Para 6 )
8. Does the pendency of another NDPS case bar bail if the accused is on bail in that case?
No, involvement in another NDPS case where the accused is already on bail does not automatically bar grant of bail. (Para 3 , 6 )
***
H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 (corresponding Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 166 dated 30.08.2025 under Section 21 of NDPS Act (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on) registered at Police Station, City Sangrur, District Sangrur.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with his co-accused Bara Singh was apprehended and 51 grams of heroin was recovered from them.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and there is non-compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. It is submitted that although the alleged recovery was shown to be effected from a public place but no independent witness was joined during investigation. He further submits that the alleged recovery falls under the category of non-commercial quantity, and therefore, the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted in the present case. He also submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 07 months and 04 days and co-accused Bara Singh has already been granted bail by this Court in CRM-M-66442-2025 on 05.03.2026. Although the petitioner is involved in another case under the NDPS Act but he is on bail in that case. He, therefore, prays for release of the petitioner on regular bail as the trial is likely to take a long time as none of the prosecution witness has been examined so far.
4. Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He has filed the custody certificate in Court, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 07 months and 04 days. He, upon instructions, submits that although challan has been presented but none of the prosecution witness has been examined so far.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 07 months and 04 days, co-accused has already been granted bail and that the trial is likely to take a long time as none of the prosecution witness has been examined so far, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial as the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice.
7. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.
8. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail.
