216 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Date of Decision: 12.02.2026 Amritpal Singh ... Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh.

Present: Mr. Laghuinder Singh Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Rohit Bansal, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent.

Surya Partap Singh, J.

1. This petition under Section(s) 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed for grant of bail with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. 115 dated 28.07.2023 under Section(s) 22 [Sections 29 and 25 added later on] of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Police Station Barnala, District Barnala, Punjab.

2. The abovesaid FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘SI Sharif Khan’ ,who had reported that on 28.07.2023 when he was heading a team of police officials deputed for usual law and order duty, at about 07.00 P.M. he received a tip-off from a reliable source that ‘Amritpal Singh’ (petitioner herein) was involved in the activities of selling intoxicating tablets and capsules at Barnala. As per prosecution, in view of above-mentioned information, the above named police officer sent an information memo to the police station and thereafter intercepted ‘Amritpal Singh’ near Sanghera Chowk, Barnala.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that when search of the bag being carried by the petitioner was conducted, it was found that he was in possession of 750 intoxicating capsules make ‘Pregabalin’. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to above-mentioned recovery, the requisite formalities with regard to seizure and sealing of contraband, slapping of FIR and formal arrest of accused were undertaken and thereafter, further investigation taken up.

4. Heard.

5. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that although this is third petition for bail moved by the petitioner yet it has to be noted that the second petition was filed way back in January 2025 and the same was not decided on merits, as it was withdrawn. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of 2½ years, and that the trial is taking place at snail’s pace as out of nineteen, five prosecution witnesses only, have been examined so far. While claiming that the right of speedy trial of the petitioner is being violated and his right of personal liberty has been taken away, the benefit of bail to the petitioner has been claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. The learned State counsel has controverted the above mentioned arguments. According to learned State counsel, since the recovery of contraband from the possession of petitioner comes within the ambit of commercial quantity, without satisfying the twin conditions enshrined under Section-37 of NDPS Act, the benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be afforded to the petitioner.

7. The record has been perused carefully.

8. As far as the principles governing the benefit of bail in a case related to NDPS Act, wherein the recovery of contraband comes within the ambit of commercial quantity, are concerned, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State’ (NCT of Delhi)’, (2023) 18 Supreme Court Cases 166 are also 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.

9. In this regard it is also relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Man Mandal 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 w