##PAGE1##

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.62 dated 26.03.2024, registered under Sections 22 and 29 NDPS Act, at Police

Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala.

2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for the last 1 year and about 11 months. As per the allegations, commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from him, it being 400 intoxicating capsules, containing 123.6 gms. of Alprazolam, while recovery from co-accused, Satnam Singh @ Satta, apprehended alongwith him, was 300 tablets, it being 90.06 gms, who has since been granted bail, vide order Annexure P-2, after being in custody for 6 months and 23 days.

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.04.16 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Further, the recovery was effected from the polythenes thrown by them,

thus,

Charges have been framed on 26.09.2024,

however, only 1 PW stands examined and there are still 7 more to go. The petitioner is involved in 3 more cases, in 2 of which, he is on bail while undergone the sentence of 2 months in 1. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana

Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382

3. The custody certificate dated 15.04.2026, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind

bars for 1 year, 10 months and 21 days.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that commercial quantity of intoxicating capsules has been recovered from the

petitioner, who was apprehended alongwith the co-accused.

Heard.

6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (Supra)had held that, “As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.04.16 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc.” Reiterating in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of UP and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, it was observed that, “The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves

cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail.”

Hon'ble The Supreme Court in Shariful Islam @ Sarif

versus The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.4173/2022, decided on 04.08.2022, granted bail to the petitioner in a case of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, considering incarceration for over 1 year and 6 months and there being no likelihood of completion of trial in the near future, while the Division Bench of this Court in Bhupender Singh vs. Narcotic Control Bureau (2022) 2 RCR (Crl.) 706, observed with regard to achieving balance between right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and rigors of Section 37 of

NDPS Act.

8. This Court in the case of Balraj Singh vs. State of Punjab CRM-M-57386-2022, on 14.12.2022 has followed the dictum laid down by Hon'ble The Supreme Court and granted the bail to the petitioner therein after he had undergone total custody of 1 year and 6 months and in Munasi Masih vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-31504-2022, on 06.2.2023, wherein commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered but only 2

out of 13 PWs had been examined, allowed bail.

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.04.16 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

9.

further incarceration of the

petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in mind the right to a speedy trial, the present petition is

allowed.

10. The petitioner is or