IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 19.05.2026 DINESH KUMAR ......PETITIONER Versus STATE OF HARYANA ..... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate &

Mr. Yajur Mago, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Deepali Verma, Asstt. A.G. Haryana.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1. This petition for bail is the second petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. This petition has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.0136 dated 28.04.2025 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 17(c)/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station City Mandi, District Dabwali.

2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ASI Balwan Singh, who had reported that on 28.04.2025 on the basis of secret information a car bearing registration No.RJ06CB-3618 was intercepted and it was found that the petitioner and his co-accused ‘Jasveer Singh’ were travelling in the above- mentioned car and from the space under neath the driver seat, 2.638 kg of Opium was 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, filing of FIR, and formal arrest of the above-named accused were completed, and further investigation taken up.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Ms. Deepali Verma, Asstt. A.G. Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent- State. Hence, the service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken 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. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than one year and ten days, and that the trial is taking place at a very slow pace as out of twenty one not even a single witness has been examined in this case. By claiming that the right of personal liberty is being violated due to delay in trial the benefit of bail has been sought.

8. The learned State counsel has controverted the above-mentioned arguments. According to learned State counsel in the present case the recovery of contraband comes within the ambit of commercial quantity, and therefore, without satisfying the rigor of Section-37 NDPS Act, the petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail. It has also been contented by learned State counsel that the petitioner does not have clean antecedents as he is facing prosecution in one more case under the NDPS Act.

9. The record has been perused carefully.

10. As far as the principles with regard to grant of bail in a case related to NDPS Act, where recovery of contraband comes within the ambit of commercial quantity, are concerned, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State’ (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352 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. 11. 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