CRM-M-28600
28600-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
231
CRM-M-28600-20252025 (O&M)
Date of decision : 07.08.2025
Jaswinder Sidhu ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Rahul Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. The instant one is the third petition that has been filed by the
petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for grant of
regular bail to him in case bearing FIR No. 136 dated 24.11.2022,, registered
under Sections
Section 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at
Police Station Chabbewal, District Hoshiarpur.
2. The petitioner has been booked in the aforesaid case on the
allegations that he was apprehended on 24.11.2022 and recovery of 253 grams
of heroin was effected from him. Investigation has since been completed and
challan has been filed. Trial is going on. T
The
he petitioner is in custody since the
date of his arrest.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in this case. Mandatory provisions of the NDPS
Act were not complied with properly. No independen
independentt witness was joined at
the time of effecting alleged recovery. Even otherwise, investigation has been
1 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 24-08-2025 15:51:13 :::
CRM-M-28600
28600-2025 (O&M) -2-
completed long back and challan has been presented in Court. However, trial
is substantially delayed as despite the fact that challan was presented on
22.03.2023,
.03.2023, the trial is not progressing as out of total 14 prosecution
witnesses, only 03 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and there
is no likelihood of the trial being completed in near future. The petitioner is
not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act. He is in custody since
24.11.2022 In view of substantial delay in trial, the petitioner is entitled to get
24.11.2022.
benefit of bail. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in
custody anymore. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be
allowed.
4. Status report has been filed by the respondent
respondent-State. Learned
Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has argued that keeping in view the
gravity of the allegations levelled
levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to
get benefit of bail. Hence, it is urged that the pet
petition
ition is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length
and have also gone through the record carefully.
6. As per the allegations, the petitioner was found to be in
possession of 253 grams of heroin on 24.11.2022
24.11.2022. The petitioner is in custody
since the date of registration of the FIR. On going through the record, it is
apparent that the trial is substantially delayed as only 03 prosecution witnesses
have been examined so far out of total 14 witnesses, despite the fact that
challan was presented way back 22.03.2023
22.03.2023. The petitioner has been
en in long
incarceration of more than 02 years and 07 months
months. The trial is obviously
delayed and there is no likelihood of the same to conclude in near future.
future
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rabi Prakash vs. State of Odisha : 2023 Live Law
(SC) 533 has held that the
he prolonged incarceration, generally militates against
2 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 24-08-2025 15:51:14 :::
CRM-M-28600
28600-2025 (O&M) -3-
the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the
statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act
Act. Similar
view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
inAnkur
Ankur Chaudhary vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh : 2024 (4) RCR (Criminal) 172
172. Reliance can also be
placed upon Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) : 2023
AIR(SC) 1648 2023 AIR(SC) 1648,
1648 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court, while
granting concession of regular bail to an accused, from whom commercial
quantity of the contraband was allegedly recovered, has held that grant
rant of bail
on the ground of undue delay in trial canno
cannott be said to be fettered by Section
37 of the NDPS Act. Reference can also be made to the authority cited as
Satender Kumar Antil vs.
vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another,
2022(10) SCC 51,
51 wherein similar observations were made by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. Reliance can also be placed upon the authority cited as
Bhupender Singh vs.
vs. Narcotic Control Bureau : (2022) 2 RCR (Criminal)
706,, wherein a Division Bench of this Court, after considering
g issue with
respect to achieving balance between right to speedy trial guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the rigors enumerated under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, has held that convict/accused is not precluded
from claiming bail invoking
invoking parameters of Article 21 of the Constitution of
India de-hors
hors the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In the
present case, apparently and evidently, the trial is substantially delayed.
Therefore, keeping in view the aforementioned ffacts
acts and circumstances and
also the ratio of law as laid down in the aforecited authorities, this Court is of
the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the
petitioner in custody anymore. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.
llowed.
3 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 24-08-2025 15:51:14 :::
CRM-M-28600
28600-2025 (O&M) -4-
The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his
furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty
Magistrate concerned. However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply
for cancellation of bail
ba in case the petitioner is found involved in any other
subsequent case.
7. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only
for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no
bearing on the merits of the case.
07.08.2025
.08.2025 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 24-08-2025 15:51:14 :::
