Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raju Alias Chhinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 11 March, 2026
104
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-57946-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 11.03.2026
Date of uploading: 11.03.2026
Raju @ Chhinder Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:- Mr. N.S. Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab.
*****
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS for
grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.59 dated 07.08.2024 registered
for the offences punishable under Section 21/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act‘), at Police Station
Ghall Khurd, District Ferozepur.
2. On 27.03.2025, the following order was passed:
“Contends, inter alia, that on the date of alleged
occurrence, petitioner was undergoing sentence in FIR No.267
dated 26.11.2019, under Sections 21 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and
Pyshotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 25 of Arms Act,
1959, registered at Police Station City, District Moga; thus, he has
been falsely implicated in the present case.
Learned State counsel is not able to dispute that petitioner
was in custody on the date of alleged occurrence.
Custody Certificate dated 26.03.2025 of the petitioner has
been produced. The same is taken on record. Copy thereof
supplied to the opposite side. Registry to do the needful.
1 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 13-03-2026 03:58:15 :::
CRM-M-57946-2024 (O&M) Page |2
In view of above, let this matter be brought to notice of
Additional Director General of Police (Prisons), Punjab, and
thereafter, an affidavit be filed regarding alleged implication of
petitioner.
Posted for 30.04.2025.
In the meanwhile, petitioner be released on interim bail in
the present case till the next date of hearing on furnishing
adequate bail and surety bonds subject to the satisfaction of
learned Special Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned.”
3. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an
accused of being involved in FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 6.655 kg
of heroin, which was allegedly recovered from the co-accused of the petitioner
namely Gurjot Singh @ Jot and Simran Kaur @ Indu and the petitioner has
been nominated in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement of the
co-accused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner
was arrested on 13.08.2024 and thereafter has been released on interim regular
bail vide order dated 27.03.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been
complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects.
Learned counsel has further iterated that sole basis to array the petitioner as
an accused is the disclosure statement of co-accused. Learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner has not
misused the concession of interim regular bail earlier afforded to him. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability
thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
5. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing
that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus,
he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel
2 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 03:58:16 :::
CRM-M-57946-2024 (O&M) Page |3
has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section
37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State
counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 10.03.2026 in Court,
which is taken on record.
6. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through
the available records of the case.
7. The petitioner was arrested on 13.08.2024 whereinafter
investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 24.01.2025. Total
23 prosecution witnesses have been cited and out of which only 2 have been
examined partly till date. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not misused
the concession of interim regular bail earlier afforded to him vide order dated
27.03.2025. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues that
shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem
it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may
prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the
likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering
with the prosecution evidence.
7.1. The trial is indeed procrastinating and folly thereof cannot be
saddled upon the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted in light of the Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
7.2. This Court in a judgment titled as Kulwinder versus State of
Punjab passed in CRM-M-64074-2024 (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying
upon the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul
Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh
3 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 03:58:16 :::
CRM-M-57946-2024 (O&M) Page |4
vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd
Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2023 INSC 311;
Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 dated 07.02.2020 titled as “Chitta Biswas Alias
Subhas vs. The State of West Bengal“; “Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan vs. The
State of West Bengal”, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5530-2022 dated
22.08.2022 titled as “Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh vs. The State of
Gujarat“; Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated 05.08.2022 titled as Gopal
Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma vs. Union of India, and Ankur Chaudhary vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024(4) RCR (Criminal) 172; has held, thus:
“7.8. The right to a speedy and expeditious trial is not only a
vital safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration; to mitigate
anxiety and concern accompanying the accusation as well as to curtail
any impairment in the ability of an accused to defend himself, but there is
an overarching societal interest paving way for a speedy trial. This right
has been repeatedly actuated in the recent past and the ratio decidendi of
the above-referred to Supreme Court’s judgments have laid down a series
of decisions opening up new vistas of fundamental rights. The concept of
speedy trial is amalgamated into the Article 21 as an essential part of the
fundamental right to life and liberty, guaranteed and preserved under our
Constitution. The right to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint
imposed at the time of the arrest of the accused and consequent
incarceration which continues at all stages, namely, the stage of
investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible
prejudice that may result due to impermissible and avoidable delay since
the time of the commission of the offence till the criminal proceedings
consummate into a finality, could be averted. The speedy trial, early
hearing and quick disposal are sine qua non of criminal jurisprudence.
The overcrowded Court-dockets, the heavy volume of work and the
resultant pressure on the prosecution and the Police, indubitably keeps the
entire criminal jurisprudential mechanism under stress and strain.
However, this cannot be an excuse for keeping the sword of Damocles
hanging on the accused for an indefinite period of time. It does not serve
any credit to the criminal justice system, rather it makes for a sad state of
affairs. The guarantee of a speedy trial is intended to avoid oppression
and prevent delay by imposing on the Court and the prosecution an
obligation to proceed with the trial with a reasonable dispatch. The
guarantee serves a threefold purpose. Firstly, it protects the accused
against oppressive pre-trial imprisonment; secondly, it relieves the
accused of the anxiety and public suspicion due to unresolved criminal
charges and lastly, it protects against the risk that evidence will be lost or
memories dimmed by the passage of time, thus, impairing the ability of the
accused to defend himself. It goes without saying that the consequences of
pre-trial detention are grave. Accused, presumed innocent, till proven
otherwise, are subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of
jail-life, usually under onerous conditions. Equally important, the burden4 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 03:58:16 :::
CRM-M-57946-2024 (O&M) Page |5of detention of such an accused frequently falls heavily on the innocent
members of his family.
There is yet another aspect of the matter which deserves
consideration at this stage. The allegations in the present case relate to
accused being involved in an FIR relating to commercial quantity of
contraband under the NDPS Act, 1985. While considering a bail petition
in a case involving commercial quantity, the Court has to keep in mind the
rigours enumerated under Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 which mandates
that Courts can grant bail to an accused only after hearing the public
prosecutor and after having satisfied itself of twin conditions which are
reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the
offence charged/alleged and that, he is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail. The stringent rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985
must be meticulously scrutinized against the backdrop of accused’s
fundamental right to a speedy trial. The right to life and personal liberty
cannot be rendered nugatory by unwarranted delays in the judicial
process, particularly where such delay(s) is neither attributable to the
accused nor justified at the end of the prosecution by cogent reasons. An
individual cannot be kept behind bars for an inordinate period of time by
taking refuge in rigours laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
The legislature in its wisdom, in order to ensure speedy and timely
disposal of the cases under the Act, has provided for the constitution of
special Courts under Section 36-A of the Act. However, this Court cannot
turn Nelson’s eye to the protracted delays and systematic inefficiency that
frustrate this legislative purpose. A Court of law is duty-bound to ensure
that it does not become complicit in violation of an individual’s
fundamental rights, notwithstanding anything contained in a statute.
While dealing with bail petition in a case governed by the rigours of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, the Court must strike a judicious
balance between the legislative intent to curb the menace of drugs and the
sacrosanct right of the accused to a fair and expeditious trial. Prolonged
incarceration, without justifiable cause, risks transforming pre-trial
detention into punitive imprisonment, an outcome antithetical to the
principle of justice and equity.
Ergo, the unequivocal inference is that where the trial has
failed to conclude within a reasonable time, resulting in prolonged
incarceration, it militates against the precious fundamental rights of life
and liberty granted under the law and, as such, conditional liberty
overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37 of the NDPS
Act, 1985 ought to be considered as per facts of a given case. In other
words, grant of bail in a case pertaining to commercial quantity, on the
ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37
of the NDPS Act, 1985.”
7.3. As per custody certificate dated 10.03.2026 filed by the learned
State counsel, the petitioner is shown to be involved in other FIRs/cases.
However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the
concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a
case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by
5 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 03:58:16 :::
CRM-M-57946-2024 (O&M) Page |6
ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this
regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR
(Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High
Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 &
judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh
v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of
Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.
8. Keeping in view the factual milieu of the case in hand; the
petitioner is stated to be 34 years old, having been released on interim
regular bail since 27.03.2025 & there is no allegation of having misused the
said concession of interim regular bail; this Court deems it fit to grant the
concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition
is allowed and the order dated 27.03.2025 is hereby confirmed. Petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to
the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate However, in
addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty
Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or
documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before
the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the
trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the
Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and
shall not change his cell-phone number without prior
permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
6 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 03:58:16 :::
CRM-M-57946-2024 (O&M) Page |7
(viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of
every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court,
to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of
any offence after being released on bail. In case the
petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his
being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of
his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move,
forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of
course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof.
9. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those
which may be imposed by concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed
hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant
shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
10. Ordered accordingly.
11. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
12. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous
application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
March 11, 2026
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 13-03-2026 03:58:16 :::
