Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balbir Singh Alias Beera vs State Of Punjab on 21 May, 2026
CRM-M-27955-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
232
CRM-M-27955-2026
Date of decision :21.05.2026
Date of uploading:22.05.2026
Balbir Singh Alias Beera .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab.
---
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present 3rd petition has been filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in case bearing FIR No.171 dated 26.06.2024, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act‘) at Police
Station Kotwali Kaputhala District Kapurthala.
2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner was
found in conscious possession of 110 grams of intoxicant powder, which
was found to contain the salt Alprazolam.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
in custody since 26.06.2024. 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 for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is
JATIN
2026.05.22 09:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-27955-2026 -2-
delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner.
Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered
incarceration for more than 1 year. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4. 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 has further submitted that the instant bail plea is
restricted 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 20.05.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.
5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through
the available records of the case.
6. The petitioner was arrested on 26.06.2024, whereinafter,
investigation was carried out and the challan was presented on
26.11.2024. Total 8 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but only 1 has
been partly examined till date. The rival contentions raised at Bar give
rise to debatable issues 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.
6.1. Indubitably, the present petition is the 3rd attempt by the
petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the
petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.02.2026. Keeping in view
JATIN the entire factual milieu of the case in hand and extended incarceration of
2026.05.22 09:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-27955-2026 -3-
the petitioner for a period of about 1 year, pace of the trial, this Court is
inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable
reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed
in CRA-S-2332-2023 titled as Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and
another; relevant whereof reads as under:
“10. As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following
principles emerge:
I. Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is
maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be
rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof.
II. Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is
maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as
withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-
prosecution or earlier petition was dismissed on merits.
III. For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to
succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently
required to show substantial change in circumstances and
showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not
suffice. The metaphoric expression of seeking second/successive
bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of
petition(s) without substantial, effective and consequential
change in circumstances.
IV. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to
what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as
every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such
an attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this
issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the
Court dealing with such second/successive regular bail
petition(s).
V. In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular
bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently
required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a
plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the
cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained
such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and
clearly decipherable from the said order passed.”
6.2. The trial is indeed procrastinating and folly thereof cannot be
saddled upon the petitioner. As per custody certificate dated 20.05.2026
filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered
incarceration for a period of 1 year, 10 months and 23 days. In this view
JATIN
of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands
2026.05.22 09:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-27955-2026 -4-
diluted in light of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
6.3. 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 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
JATIN
jurisprudential mechanism under stress and strain. However, this
2026.05.22 09:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-27955-2026 -5-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 burden of 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.”
JATIN
2026.05.22 09:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-27955-2026 -6-
6.4 As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be
involved in more cases/FIR(s). Indubitably, the antecedents of a person
are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition
preferred by him. 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 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.
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial
is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. 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.
JATIN (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date
2026.05.22 09:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-27955-2026 -7-
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.
(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.
8. 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.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
11. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous
application, if any, shall also stands disposed of.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
21.05.2026
ja
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
JATIN
2026.05.22 09:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
