Nirbhay Singh v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 03.11.2025 Nirbhay Singh ..... Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Present:

Mr. Navneet Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Deepali Verma, Asst. A.G. Haryana.

***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1.

For the commission of offence punishable under Sections 18A, 18C, 22, and 27 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hereinafter being referred to as 'NDPS Act' only, the FIR No.187 dated 01.03.2018 has been lodged in Police Station Sirsa City, District Sirsa. The petitioner is being prosecuted for the commission of abovementioned offence and he has been arrested. The petitioner is in custody and, therefore, craving for bail. This is seventh petition for bail filed by the petitioner, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 . 2.

In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being on 01.03.2018 when a police party headed by ASI Deepak Kumar was present near Town Park, Sirsa, for patrolling and crime detection duty. As per prosecution, there a secret information was received

that in a godown situated adjacent to Laxmi Bistar House, UCO Bank Anaj Mandi Wali Street, Sirsa, in a godown situated at Auto Market, Near Railway Line and in a godown situated Ellenabad Bye-pass, Opposite street of Radhey Dharamkanta a heavy quantity of contraband of intoxicating medicines and tablets had been stored. On receipt of abovementioned information, the police had conducted raid in the godown situated in street of UCO Bank adjacent to Laxmi Bistar Bhandar and recovered huge quantity of medicines. As per prosecution at the time of raid, one Nirbhay Singh alias NRI s/o Bhura Singh Jatt Sikh, r/o village Masipatti (petitioner) was present there.

3.

It is the case of the prosecution that thereafter, formal FIR of this case was lodged, the investigation taken up, and the petitioner was arrested.

4.

Heard.

5.

It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner has already suffered a long incarceration for being in custody for a period of more than 05 years and 09 months, and that due to delay in trial, the fundamental right of the petitioner, w.r.t. right to freedom of life and liberty, has been violated. Hence the present petition. 6.

Per contra, the learned State Counsel has argued that from the date of dismissal of former bail petitions, no significant change in circumstances has taken place, and therefore, this petition in itself is not maintainable. In addition to above, the learned State Counsel has also argued

that the trial has already reached to its final stage, as the prosecution evidence already stands concluded, and the case is fixed for defence evidence. While claiming that a very serious crime has been committed by the petitioner, the learned State Counsel has sought for dismissal of present petition.

7.

The record has been perused carefully.

8.

A perusal of record shows that in the present case from the date of dismissal of former bail petitions for bail, no significant change in circumstances has taken place. In addition to above, it is also relevant to mention here that in the present case, the trial has already reached to a final stage, and therefore, the grievance of the petitioner that he is facing protracted trial can be redressed by giving a direction to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial in a time-bound manner. 9.

In the present case, it is also relevant to mention here that this is seventh bail petition, filed by the petitioner, and the merits pertaining to instant case have already been dealt with by this Court, in earlier bail petitions. From the date of dismissal of sixth bail petition on 08.07.2024, there is no significant progress in the trial, and except the ground of long incarceration, there is no plea with regard to change in material circumstances.

10.

As a cumulative effect of all the above-discussed factors, it is hereby held that this seventh petition for bail, filed by the petitioner, is not maintainable, and deserves dismissal.

11.

In view of above, the present petition is hereby dismissed, accordingly. However, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE NOVEMBER 03, 2025 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No