IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-54759-2025 Date of decision: 12.02.2026 NISHAN SHARMA ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. S.S. Nahar, DAG Punjab.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.305 dated 21.12.2022 registered under Section 22(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Sections 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act and Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 IPC added later on) at Police Station Division-A, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar.

2. Brief facts of the present case, as per the prosecution, are that on 21.12.2022, Inspector Rajwinder Kaur along with her fellow police officials on the basis of secret information, apprehended the petitioner. On search, the petitioner was found in conscious possession of 29,920 intoxicant tablets.

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. The petitioner is in custody since 21.12.2022. The investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented and charges have also been framed and out of 27 prosecution witnesses none has been examined. He submits that the co-accused persons have already been granted concession of bail by the Co-Ordinate Bench. 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. Learned State counsel has already filed the status report and has filed the custody certificate today which is taken on record. He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature and that he was apprehended at the spot with the alleged contraband, which falls under the commercial quantity. He has further submitted that the petitioner is involved in multiple other cases, meaning thereby he is a habitual offender.

5. 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 03 years and 01 month, investigation is complete; challan stands presented; charges have also been framed; out of 27 prosecution witnesses none has 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. Keeping the petitioner in further 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.

6. 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”.

7. 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.)