IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

238 CRM-M-25812-2026 Date of decision : 12.05.2026 Taljinder Singh ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Robin Singh Bhullar, Advocate for the petitioner.

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

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

This petition for bail is 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.28 dated 16.02.2024, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 18, 18-C, 29 (Sections 25 & 27 of NDPS Act added later on), of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Police Station Special Task Force, District STF Wing (SAS Nagar).

2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Inspector Harbans Lal’, who reported that on 16.02.2024 when he was leading a team of police officials discharging duty with regard to vehicle checking, he received a tip-off from a reliable source that ‘Gurdev Singh’ along with Tejinder Singh (petitioner herein) was involved in the illegal trading of opium, and that he was carrying a huge quantity of opium in his Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No.PB91-R-5883. According to above- named police officer, on receipt of abovementioned information the abovementioned vehicle was intercepted and on checking of vehicle, 66 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, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were performed, and further investigation taken up. According to prosecution, Tejinder Singh was the driver of abovementioned vehicle.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab, 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 opted to oppose orally the present petition.

6. Heard.

7. The record has been perused carefully.

8. 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.

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 ba