Sandeep Singh v. State Of Punjab
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:13.01.2026 Sandeep Singh ... Petitioner Vs.
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:
Mr. Vaibhav Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.
...
Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).
1.
The present one is the second petition as filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') seeking concession of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.008 dated 10.02.2024, registered under Sections 21(C), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Jhabal, District Tarn Taran. His previous petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.09.2024. 2.
As per the allegations, on 10.02.2024, on the basis of secret information, accused Baljit Singh, Bikramjeet Singh @ Vicky and the present petitioner were apprehended and 3 kgs. and 900 grams of contraband heroin was recovered from their conscious possession, which was taken into custody by the police. They were formally arrested. Investigation now stands completed and the petitioner along with co-accused is facing trial for
-2commission of the aforementioned offences.
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 custody since 10.02.2024 i.e. for a period of 01 year, 10 months and 26 days. The trial would take considerable time to conclude as no prosecution witness has been examined so far. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. With these broad submissions, it is urged that he deserves to be released on bail.
4.
Status report has been filed. It is argued by learned State counsel that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner and his criminal antecedents, he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail. It is also argued that the present one being the successive bail application is not maintainable. 5.
This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
6.
The petitioner along with co-accused is alleged to have found in conscious possession of contraband. The allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of subject offence against him. Rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are also attracted. However, he is in custody for a period of 01 year, 10 months and 26 days as on date. Not even a single witness out of 11 prosecution witness has been examined so far and there is nothing on record to show that delay in conclusion of the trial is attributable to the petitioner. 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
-3of 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, 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 Rabdi Prakash v.
State of Odisha, 2023 SCC Online SC 110, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had extended benefit of bail to the accused who had been incarcerated for a long period by observing that prolonged incarceration militated 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.
7.
Reliance can also be placed upon Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025, which is a recently pronounced verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court observing that rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act will not be a bar for considering the case of an accused for bail as it comes with a condition that the prosecution would press for an early completion of trial. In the abovementioned case the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that appellant who was being
-4prosecuted for being in possession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, was entitled for bail in view of her incarceration for a period of 19 months.
8.
Similarly in another case i.e. in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The court expressed the opinion that Section 436A (which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 would apply. 9.
In the case of Ismail Khan @ Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan Crminal Appeal No.4911 of 2025 with regard to recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic substance the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India accorded the benefit of bail to the accused in view of prolonged incarceration for a period of 02 years and 08 months of the accused. 10.
The similar benefit has been extended in another appeal i.e. SLP No.15699-2025 titled as Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK vs. The State of West Bengal and in the case of Pamesh Arora vs. UT Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.4872 of 2025.
11.
So far as the maintainability of this second petition is concerned, it may be mentioned that an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, and it is the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a subsequent bail application, to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail petition was rejected. The fresh grounds
-5which persuade the Court to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application are also required to be recorded. Reference in this regard can be made to Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 11 SCC 458, wherein it was so observed. On analyzing the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case in the light of the aforementioned principles of law, it transpires that the petitioner has suffered prolonged incarceration for a period of 1 year, 10 months and 11 days, the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as no prosecution witness out of 11 has been examined; the continued detention of the petitioner is not likely to serve any fruitful purpose; there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate in the trial or will abscond. The previous petition had been dismissed more than 01 year 03 months back. Each day spent by the petitioner in custody amounts to a fresh cause of action for seeking bail.
12.
In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner. 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 extent of two sureties in the like amount each, 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)
-6during the pendency of the trial.
13.
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. 14.
Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.
(MANISHA BATRA) 13.01.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No