215 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Munisha Rani @ Manisha Rani ….Petitioner versus State of Punjab ….Respondent Date of Decision: April 17, 2026 Date of Uploading: April 17, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Naresh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Additional AG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023/

439 Cr. P.C. seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.46 dated 23.04.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 61/85 of the NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving alleged recovery of 19 vials of Codeine Phosphate & Triprolidine Hydrochloride Syrup

100ml (ONEREX) from the petitioner and his co-accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 23.04.2025. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 11 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 16.04.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 23.04.2025, whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan qua the petitioner was presented on 25.09.2025. Total 17 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which, none has been examined till date. It is, thus, indubitable that conclusion of the trial will take long time. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1. The trial is indeed procrastinating and folly thereof cannot be saddled upon the petitioner. As per custody certificate dated 16.04.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 11 months and 22 days, & is not shown to be involved in any other FIR(s).

In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted in light of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6.2. This Court in a judgment titled as Kulwinder versus State of Punjab passed in CRM-M-64074-2024 (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying upon the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2023 INSC 311; Criminal Appeal No.245