High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/64484/2025allowed

Najim v. State Of Haryana

2026-05-21Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi6 pages

-1-

-24.

contends that commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from the petitioner. Therefore, in view of the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of bail. He, however, concedes that been examined so far

-35.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) Nos.5769/2022 Decided on 01.08.2022 held as under:- "As per the office report dated 29.07.2022, copy of the show cause notice along with Special Leave Petition was supplied to the Standing Counsel for the State of West Bengal and separate notice has been served on the State also. However, no one has entered appearance on their behalf.

The petitioner seeks enlargement on bail in F.I.R. No. 612 of 2020 dated 17.10.2020 filed under Section 21(c) and 37 of the NDPS 2 Act, registered at Police Station Bongaon, West Bengal. During the course of the hearing, we are informed that the petitioner has undergone custody for a period of 01 year and 07 months as on 09.06.2022. The trial is at a preliminary stage, as only one witness has been examined. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.

Taking into consideration the period of sentence undergone by the petitioner and all the attending circumstances but without expressing any views in the merits of the case, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

The petitioner is accordingly, directed to be released on bail subject to him furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

The Special Leave Petition is disposed of on the aforestated terms.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." 7.

In Hasanujjaman & others Versus The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.(s).3221/2023, decided on 04.05.2023, held as under:-

-4-

-5- (emphasis supplied) 8.

Admittedly, in 'Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan' (supra) and 'Hasanujjaman & others' (supra), the accused therein had been granted the concession of bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court after they had undergone approximately one and a half years of custody. They were also first-time offenders as is borne out from the orders.

In the instant case, the petitioner is stated to be in custody since been examined so far. He is also first-time offender with no other case registered against him. In this situation, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted to an extent in view of the salutary provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which provides for the right to a speedy trial and the case of the petitioners can be considered for the grant of bail 10.

Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner-Najim S/o Yasin is ordered to be

-6released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned. 11.

The petitioner shall appear before the police station concerned on the first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the trial and inform in writing each time that he is not involved in any other crime other than the present case.

12.

In addition, the petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall prepare an FDR in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and deposit the same with the Trial Court. The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case of the absence of the petitioner from trial without sufficient cause.