IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-50232-2025 Date of decision: 12.02.2026 RAMPREET @ RAMPRIT ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. L.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, AAG Haryana.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.220 dated 28.05.2024 registered under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Taraori, District Karnal.

2. Brief facts of the present case, as per the prosecution, are that on 27.05.2024, S.I. Singhraj along with his fellow police officials was on a patrolling duty and on the basis of secret information, apprehended the petitioner who was found in conscious possession of 4.8 kg of Charas.

Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. He further contends that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with at the time of alleged search and seizure. He argued that the recovery of alleged contraband has already been effected from the petitioner and nothing more is to be recovered from him. He submits that the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case. The petitioner is in custody since 28.05.2024. The investigation in the case is complete; challan stands presented and charges have also been framed; out of 23 prosecution witnesses only 09 have been examined. He further submits that the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Learned State counsel who has appeared on advance notice has filed custody certificate. Status report has already been filed and he relying upon the same has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature as he was apprehended at the spot with heavy quantity of alleged contraband, which falls under the commercial quantity. However, he has not controverted the fact that the petitioner is first time offender as he is not involved in any other case.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 01 year and 08 months, investigation is complete; challan stands presented; charges have also been framed; out of 23 prosecution witnesses only 09 have been examined and the fact that trial may take a long time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in further custody. His continued detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7. Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement of her right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is against the principle “bail is a rule” and “jail is an exception”.

8. A two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Nandlal Mondal @ Abhay Mondal v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.12788/2023, granted bail to the accused after 18 months of incarceration on the ground of delay in trial in an NDPS matter involving commercial quantity of contraband. Similar relief has been granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a series of judgments, namely: Md. Aliul Islam @ Aliul Islam @ Alius v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No. 736/2024; Debrata Mondal v. State of West Bengal, SLP (