IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

220 CRM-M-12835-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision : 27.03.2026 Jagsir Singh ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

This petition for bail is the first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.235 dated 03.12.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 22(C), 27 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act [Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on], Police Station Nathana, District Bathinda.

2. The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘SI/SHO Amrinder Singh’ who had reported that on 03.12.2025 at about 08:40 P.M., he was leading a team of police officials, deputed for patrolling duty and vehicle checking, a motorcycle was spotted. According to above-named police officer on the basis of suspicion the abovesaid biker was stopped, and the search of his person was conducted. As per report, the abovesaid motorcycle rider disclosed his name as Sukhchain Singh @Chaina and from his possession 2500 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride (455 grams) were recovered.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were performed, and further investigation taken up.

4. According to prosecution during the course of investigation when the accused Sukhchain Singh @Chaina was interrogated, he suffered a disclosure statement wherein he nominated the petitioner by stating that the contraband was supplied to him by the petitioner.

5. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. Status report has already been placed on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State Counsel has orally opposed the present petition.

6. Heard.

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, pertaining to recovery 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 SCC OnLine SC 352 are relevant. In the abovementioned case 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 ‘Manmandal 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, and in such a situation, the constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo contained under Section-37 of the NDPS Act.

10. In addition to above, in a recently pronounced verdict in the case of ‘Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr.’ Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act will not be a bar for considering the case of an accused for bail as it comes with a condition that the prosecution would press for an early completion of trial. In the above-mentioned case the Hon’b