IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 07.04.2026 YADWINDER SINGH ALIAS JAJ ......PETITIONER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB . ..... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Saurabh Singla, Advocate (Through V.C.) for Mr. Armaan Gagneja, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1. This petition for bail is the second petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. This petition has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.106 dated 08.07.2024, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 22(c)/61/85 [Section 27 added later on] of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Lambi, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘SI Dharamvir Singh’. It was reported by the above named police officer that when he was leading a team of police officials for patrolling duty near village Sikhwala bridge, he spotted four persons, having a white coloured polythene bag. As per above named police officer, on the basis of their suspicious behaviour all of them were apprehended and from their possession 60 intoxicating tablets of Etizolam (total 11.04 gm.) recovered.

3. As per prosecution on recovery of contraband the requisite formalities with regard to seizure and sealing of contraband, slapping of FIR and formal arrest of accused were completed, and thereafter, further investigation taken up.

4. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However the learned State counsel has opted to oppose orally the present petition.

5. Heard.

6. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that there is no specific detail of the person from whose possession contraband was recovered, and that the petitioner has already suffered prolonged incarceration for being in custody for a period of more than 1 year, 8 months and 27 days. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial is taking place at a slow pace as out of eighteen only four witnesses have been examined, so far.

7. Per contra, the learned State counsel has contended that the recovery of contraband in the present case comes within the ambit of commercial quantity, and therefore, unless the twin conditions enshrined under Section 37 of NDPS Act are complied with, the benefit of bail should not be afforded to the petitioner.

8. The record has been perused carefully.

9. As far as the principles governing the benefit of bail in a case related to NDPS Act, are concerned, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State’ (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352 are relevant, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has 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 which is applicable to offences under the Act. 10. In this regard it is also relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘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 SCC Online SC 1109, extended the benefit of bail to the accused, who had been incarcerated for a period of almost 2-3 years and the trial was likely to take considerable time. The above-mentioned benefit has been given by observing that prolonged incarceration generally militates 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.

11. In addition to a