CRM-M/39805/2026 of VARINDER SINGH @ RAJU Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 10 September 2026

1. T Section 483 of for grant of re registered un Psychotropic District Bathi dismissed by bearing No.4 23.03.2026.

2. It in custody for for Discitis, w infection of in

HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

SINGH @ RAJU

Versus PUNJAB

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MA Mr. Charnjit Singh Baahia, Advo Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab *** BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant one is the third petiti f Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sa egular bail in case arising out o nder Sections 22(C) and 27 Substances Act (for short “NDP nda. His first petition bearing this Court vide order dated 10.1 4832-2026 was dismissed by t is argued by learned counsel fo r a period of over 02 years. In which is a serious medical condit ntervertebral discs in the spine B AND HARYANA AT H CRM-M-39805-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.09.2026

... Petitioner

...Respondent ANISHA BATRA cate for the petitioner b ion filed by the petitioner under anhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) of FIR No.51 dated 28.07.2024 of the Narcotic Drugs and PS Act”) at Police Station Phul, g No.CRM-M-26984-2025 was 11.2025 and his second petition this Court vide order dated or the petitioner that he has been the year 2023, he was operated tion involving inflammation and . In September, 2025, he was

r )

d , s n d n d d s AMIT SHARMA

diagnosed wit operative chan regular physio condition is w furnished a re likely to take not serve any against his fun Constitution o and he deserve

3. P progressed to now. The pr passing detail maintainable. therefore, argu

4. T counsel for the

5. S successive one to move succe Court, while e any fresh gro th MRI Lumbo-Sacral spine w nges. He is suffering from pa otherapy, however, the same is n worsening day-by-day. Each da ason afresh to him to seek conc considerable time to conclude. y useful purpose. His prolong ndamental rights of liberty as gu of India. It is, therefore, argued es to be extended benefit of bail. Per contra, learned State counse satisfactory extent as only 05 w revious bail petitions of the pet led orders. The instant one b The medical condition of th ued that the petition does not des This Court has heard the rival e parties at considerable length. So far as the question of mainta e is concerned, it may be mentio essive bail application for grant entertaining such a subsequent b und which persuade it to take which was suggestive of post- ain in the left leg and requires not being provided in Jail. His ay spent by him in custody has cession of bail. The trial is still His further incarceration would ged incarceration also militates uaranteed under Article 21 of the that the petition is maintainable . el has argued that the trial has witnesses remain to be examined titioner had been dismissed by eing successive petition is not he petitioner is stable. It is, serve to be allowed. submissions made by learned ainability of this petition being oned that, an accused has a right of bail and it is the duty of the bail application, to consider that a view different from the one

- s s s l d s e e s d y t , d g t e t e AMIT SHARMA

taken in the e noted that eve action for filin kept in custo considered eve State of Mah Court had obs right to speedy observed that concerned has an accused to Constitution, oppose the ple Article 21 of t It is also well- accused at the question is w probable that bail is not to b be made to Gu

6. T involved in sm period of more earlier application is made out o ery day spent by an accused in c ng a bail application under certa ody for indefinite period and en if it is filed repeatedly. In Jav harashtra and another 2024(9) served that howsoever, serious a y trial. Bail is not to be withhe if the State or any prosecutin s no wherewithal to provide or p o have a speedy trial as ensh then the State or any other p ea for bail on the ground that th the Constitution applies irrespec -settled that the object of bail is e trial and the proper test to be whether the bail should be gran the party will appear to take its be withheld as a punishment. R urbaksh Singh Sibba v. State of The petitioner and the co-accu muggling of contraband. The pe e than 02 years. He has produce or not. It is also required to be custody provides a new cause of ain circumstances. He cannot be d the bail application can be ved Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs The ) SCC 813, the Hon’ble Apex crime may be, an accused has a ld as a punishment. It was also ng agency including the Court protect the fundamental right of hrined under Article 21 of the prosecuting agency should not he crime committed, is serious. ctive of the nature of the crime. s to secure the attendance of the applied is in the solution of the nted or refused or whether it is s trial and it is indisputable that Reference in this regard can also f Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565. used is alleged to have been etitioner is in custody for over a ed copies of discharge summary e f e e e x a o t f e t . . e e s t o n a y AMIT SHARMA

etc. to show th Though, the d that presently made his cust indefinite peri account of del the light of Se upon the obse Hussain v. Sta held that grant fettered under 436-A of Cr.P observed that j than not, appa are more like placed upon M Leave Petition Prakash v. St Supreme Cou incarcerated f militated agai Article 21 of hat he had diagnosed with Disci documents produced on record he is suffering from any such tody uncomfortable, however, h iod. It is well settled propositi lay in trial and long period of inc ection 37 of the NDPS Act. Relia ervations made by Hon’ble Ap ate (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC t of bail on account of undue de r Section 37 of the NDPS Act, g P.C. which is applicable to offe jails are overcrowded and their l alling. The danger of unjustifie ly to be hardened rather than r Manmandal and Another v. S n (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 d tate of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw urt had extended benefit of bail for a long period by observin inst the most precious fundam f the Constitution and in such itis and had been operated upon. are not suggestive of showing h medical condition which has e cannot be kept in custody for ion of law that grant of bail on carceration is to be considered in ance in this regard can be placed pex Court in Mohd. Muslim @ OnLine SC 352, wherein it was elay in trial cannot be said to be given the imperative of Section ence under the Act. It was also living conditions are, more often d imprisonment is that inmates reformed. Reliance can also be State of West Bengal, Special decided on 14.09.2023 and Rabi (SC) 533, wherein the Hon’ble l to the accused who had been ng that prolonged incarceration mental right guaranteed under h a situation, the constitutional

. g s r n n d @ s e n o n s e l i e n n r l AMIT SHARMA

principles mus the NDPS Act

7. R Chhattishgarh Supreme Cour bar for conside that the prosec mentioned cas being prosecu substance, wa months.

8. S Investigation, delay engaged the correct a including Sect 436A (which is not conclud 1973 would ap

9. In Crminal Appe quantity of n st override the statutory embargo t. Reliance can also be placed upo h & Anr., Criminal Appeal No rt observed that rigors of Section ering the case of an accused for b cution would press for an early c se, the Hon’ble Supreme Cour uted for being in possession of c s entitled for bail in view of her Similarly in Satender Kumar (2022) 10 SCC 51 prolonge d the attention of the Hon’ble Su approach towards bail, with r tion 37 NDPS Act. The court ex requires inter alia the accused to ded within specified periods) of pply. n the case of Ismail Khan @ P eal No.4911 of 2025 with reg narcotic substance, the Hon’ble o contained under Section 37 of on Santosh Pawar Vs. State of o.4883/2025, where the Hon’ble n 37 of NDPS Act will not be a bail as it comes with a condition completion of trial. In the above- rt held that appellant who was commercial quantity of narcotic r incarceration for a period of 19 Antil v. Central Bureau of ed incarceration and inordinate upreme Court, which considered respect to several enactments, xpressed the opinion that Section o be enlarged on bail if the trial f the Criminal Procedure Code, Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan ard to recovery of commercial e Supreme Court accorded the

f f e a n - s c f e d , n l , n l e AMIT SHARMA

benefit of bail of 02 years an

10. O case in the lig petitioner has days. The co fruitful purpos the petitioner w

11. In a case is made the petition is subject to his f the learned tria

12. It not be constru case and shall

13. S any, is rendere 10.09.2026 Amit Sharma l to the accused in view of prolo nd 08 months of the accused. On analyzing the peculiar facts a ght of the aforementioned princip suffered prolonged incarceration ontinued detention of the petiti se. There is nothing on record t will not participate in the trial or n view of the above discussion, e out for grant of bail to the petit s allowed and the petitioner is furnishing personal as well as su al Court/Chief Judicial Magistra t is, however, clarified that the ued as an expression of opinion o not influence the outcome of the Since the main petition has been ed infructuous. (M Whether speaking/reasoned:- Whether reportable:- Yes/No onged incarceration for a period and circumstances of the present ples of law, it transpires that the n for a period of 02 years and 08 oner is not likely to serve any to show that if released on bail, r will abscond. this Court is of the opinion that tioner at this stage. Accordingly, ordered to be released on bail urety bonds to the satisfaction of ate/Duty Magistrate concerned. observations made above shall of this Court on the merits of the e trial in any manner. allowed, pending application, if MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE

- Yes/No

d t e y , t , l f l e f AMIT SHARMA