IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.03.2026 HARPREET SINGH ALIAS HARIA ALIAS HARIYA ......PETITIONER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Abheysher Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1. This petition for bail, is the second petition filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This petition has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.106 dated 27.08.2023, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 22/61/85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of Sub Inspector Balwinder Singh. It was reported by the above-named police officer that on 27.08.2023, when he was leading a team of police officials, deputed for patrolling duty, he spotted a person approaching from village Husnar. According to prosecution, when the above-said person noticed the presence of police party, he baffled and tried to take u-turn but on account of his above-mentioned suspicious behaviour, he was checked by the police party. As per report submitted by the above-named police officer on checking of his person, the above-named person was found in possession of 1000 tablets of ‘Tramadol Hydrochloride’ (total wight 387 grams).

3. 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 the petitioner were performed and further investigation taken up.

4. Heard.

5. The record has been perused carefully.

6. Since the quantity of contraband recovered in the present case comes within the ambit of commercial quantity, the principles related to recovery of commercial quantity of contraband under NDPS Act, 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.

7. 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.

8. 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’ble Supreme Court of India held that appellant who was being prosecuted for being in possession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, was entitled for bail in view of her incarceration for a period of 19 months.

9. Similarly in another case i.e. in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation’ (20