Harmandeep Singh @ Ravi v. State Of Punjab
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 29.05.2026 Harmandeep Singh @ Ravi ... Petitioner Vs.
State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Anoop Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State.
---- MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1.
The instant one is the third petition as filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short "BNSS") seeking regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.89 dated 12.06.2024 registered under Sections 22(c) and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') at Police Station Jaito, District Faridkot. The previous two petitions as filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as withdrawn. 2.
As per the allegations, on 12.06.2024, the petitioner was
-2apprehended by police and recovery of 3000 tablets of Trekem-100 having salt of Tramadol Hydrochloride was effected from him. The recovered contraband was taken into possession. He was formally arrested. On his disclosure, the co-accued Akashdeep Singh @ Laddi was nominated as accused. Investigation now stands completed. 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 for a period of about two years. The trial will take considerable time. His further incarceration will not serve any useful purpose. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished a fresh ground to him to seek concession of bail. The co-accused Akashdeep Singh @ Laddi is on bail. It is, therefore, urged that he deserves to be released on bail.
4.
Notice of motion.
5.
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab has advance notice of the petition. While placing on record custody certificate, it is argued by her that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, the fact that his previous petitions had been dismissed as withdrawn, the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 6.
This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7.
So far as the maintainability of the petition is concerned, it may
-3be 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 which 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. The petitioner is in custody for a period of about 01 year, 11 months and 15 days. Five prosecution witnesses have been given up as informed by learned State counsel and none has been examined and, therefore, the trial will obviously take time to conclude.
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, appalling.
-4more 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 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.
8.
Reliance can also be placed upon the order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025, wherein it observed that rigours 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 above-mentioned case the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that appellant who was being prosecuted 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. 9.
Similarly in another case i.e. in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 prolonged
-5incarceration 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. 10.
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. 11.
The similar benefit has been taken 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.
12.
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 about 01 year, 11 months and 15 days. The trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as five prosecution witnesses have been given up as informed by learned State counsel and none has been examined; the continued detention of the petitioner is not likely to serve
-6any 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. 13.
In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that a 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 learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned 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.
14.
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. (MANISHA BATRA) 29.05.2026 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No