IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sukhvir Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 05.05.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 07.05.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 07.05.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full

4 Full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not

5 reasons thereof applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. S.S. Rangi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Fateh Sahota, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vivek Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J :-

The instant one is the second petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 129 dated 11.07.2024 registered under Sections 18 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station City Rajpura, District Patiala. His previous petition bearing CRM-M-No.

59352-2025 had been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.01.2026.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the allegations that on

11.07.2024, on receipt of a secret information, the petitioner and co-accused Gurpreet Singh were apprehended and recovery of 6 kgs of opium was effected from their conscious possession which was taken into possession by the police. The petitioner and co-accused were formally arrested. They suffered disclosure statements to the effect that they used to procure the opium from Aurangabad and Bihar and further supply the same to Ankush and Karam Singh, who were nominated as co-accused. Offence under Section 29 of NDPS Act was added. It was also revealed that the recovered vehicle which was registered in the name of Rohit Chopra, had been sold to the present petitioner. Investigation now stands concluded.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery has been planted upon him. He is in continuous custody since 16.07.2024. Each day spent by him in custody has given rise to a fresh cause of action for seeking bail. The co- accused Gurpreet Singh, whose case is on similar footing, has been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be released on bail. Even otherwise, trial is substantially delayed in this case as none out of 13 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Status report has been filed by respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner; the fact that the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are attracted in this case and further that the instant petition, being a successive petition, is not maintainable, the same does not deserve to be allowed.

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

6. The petitioner is in custody since 11.07.2024. None out of 13 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. Meaning thereby that there are no chances of conclusion of the trial in near future. It is well settled proposition of law that grant of bail on account of delay in trial and long period of incarceration is to be considered in the light of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, wherein it was 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 of Cr.P.C. which is applicable to offence under the Act. It was also observed that jails are overcrowded and their living conditions are, more often than not, appallin