Gursaran v. State Of Haryana
CRM-M-20678-2026 -1-
Sr. No.
Particulars Details The date when the judgment is reserved 23.04.2026 The date when the judgment is pronounced 27.04.2026 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 27.04.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full judgment is pronounced Full The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof Not applicable
!!! "
#
$%&
'
( ) )
*+*& ,
-' ./ #
) (( (# (01 2%&
23+4*+*$
2356 *7
8(
#
27%3,
-./
)
8
*
(
23+4*+*$
#
CRM-M-20678-2026 -2-
9
37&)(3++(9 )
9
9
"
9(
#
9 9
) ( : ( 1
(
9
& ( #
#
9
#
9
23+4*+*$ 1
9
"
+*
&2
;9
#
#
(
9
9
<
# #9
(
#
$
(
) (
(
(
(
&= 8
# "
#
(
(
;
#
# "
3 This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. "
6
CRM-M-20678-2026 -3-
(
( #
)
9
9
# (
>
9
> )
(
>
(
>
>
(
#
(
( # #
#
(
"
1 ?
#
(
#
(
8
9
&=
#
&=
8
?
# = In the instant case, contraband of commercial quantity was allegedly recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner has placed on record Annexure P-4 report of Medical Officer of District Jail, Faridabad showing that he is a known case of HIV and has been providing treatment. As per this report, his general condition is stable and vitals are within normal limit. As such, it cannot be stated that his condition is critical. However, he has remained in custody for a period over 01 year and 10 months. Only 02 out of 31 witnesses that too partly have been examined by prosecution in this case, obviously, chances of trial in near future are bleak. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in a catena of cases that an accused cannot be kept in custody
CRM-M-20678-2026 -4for an indefinite period of time. Prolonged detention itself is a ground for reconsideration of bail since the settled principle of law is that detention prior to trial should not become punitive. It is true that grant of bail on account of delay in trial and long period of incarceration is to be considered in light of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the observations made by the 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 436A which is applicable to offences under the Act.
It was also observed that the jails are overcrowded and their living conditions are, more often than not, appalling. The danger of unjustified imprisonment is that inmates are more likely to be hardened rather than reformed. Reliance can also be placed upon 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 110, wherein bail was granted to the accused, who had been incarcerated for a period of almost two to three years and the trial was likely to take considerable time, 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 principle must override the statutory embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
8.
In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that
CRM-M-20678-2026 -5a case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, and subject to the condition that he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case. He shall appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing except when his presence has been exempted by the trial Court. He shall surrender his passport, if any, furnish details of his cell phone and Aadhaar card, and shall not change his mobile number(s) during the pendency of the trial.
9.
It is clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner. 10.
Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. ! "
#$%&'(