IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:16.04.2026 Rulda Khan ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Vijay Sheoran, 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 arising out of FIR No.15, dated 26.02.2024, registered under Sections 21-C, 27 and 29 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Bassi Pathana, District Fatehagarh Sahib.

2. As per the allegations, on 26.02.2024, a police party was patrolling in the area of village Shaheedgarh, when one i20 make car was intercepted on the basis of suspicion. Signal was given to the driver of the car to stop but he tried to flee. However, the vehicle was somehow stopped by the police officials. Three persons were found to be present in the vehicle. On asking, they disclosed their names as Sarbjit Singh @ Billa, Rulda Khan i.e. the present petitioner and Sandeep Singh @ Sonu. On conducting their search, 185 injections of Leegesic and 185 vials of Avil were recovered from their conscious possession. The recovered intoxicating injections were taken into custody by the police officials. They were formally arrested.

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 conductor side of the vehicle. He is in custody for a period of over 02 years, 01 month and 16 days. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. He is not involved in any other case of similar nature. His continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Commercial quantity of intoxicating injections was recovered at the instance 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, stressed 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 26.02.2024 i.e. for a period of over 02 years, 01 month and 16 days. There are bleak chances of conclusion of trial in near future since only 03 out of 18 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. 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 fundam