220 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Date of Decision: 12.02.2026 Gurvinder singh alias Kaka alias Gurwinder Singh ... Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent(s)

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

Present: Mr. Ahaysher Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s) (Through Video Conference Mode).

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, hereinafter being referred to as “BNSS” only, has been moved for grant of bail with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. 82 dated 29.12.2024 under Section(s) 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Police Station City-1 Abohar, District Fazilka, Punjab.

2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from the record are that the FIR of this case came into being when police party headed by ‘ASI Manjit Singh’ was deputed on patrolling duty and on the basis of suspicion checked a white colour car make i-10 bearing registration No. HR-033-U-5823. As per prosecution on the basis of suspicion when the above mentioned police party carried out search of the above mentioned car, it was found that four persons were sitting therein. It is the case of prosecution that during search recovery of 1.56 kgs. of ‘Heroin’ had taken place.

3. It is the case of prosecution that in view of above-mentioned recovery, the requisite formalities with regard to seizure and sealing of contraband, slapping of FIR and formal arrest of accused were undertaken.

Thereafter, further investigation taken up.

4. Heard.

5. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of approximately more than one year and seven months, and that the trial is taking place at snail’s pace as out of eighteen, only two prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. While claiming that due to delay in trial the right of speedy trial guaranteed to the petitioner is being violated, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for the benefit of bail for the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has clean antecedents who has never been prosecuted, in the past, for any offence under the NDPS Act.

6. The learned State counsel has controverted the above mentioned arguments. According to learned State counsel, in the present case the quantity of contraband recovered from the possession of petitioner comes within the ambit of commercial quantity, and that unless the twin conditions enshrined under Section-37 of NDPS Act are satisfied, 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 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 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,