Allowed¶36

Vijaypal Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC12 May 2025CRM-M/2943/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS bail; 180 kg poppy husk commercial quantity; S.483 BNSS; 1 yr 10 mths 15 days custody; 0/30 PWs examined; trial not commenced; Art. 21 fairness trumps S.37 NDPS bar (Mohd. Muslim); Nandlal Mondal protracted-trial line relied on; bail granted, merits left open. CRM-M-2943-2025 (O&M), P&H HC, 12.05.2025, Harpreet Singh Brar J.

What did the court decide?

Release on regular bail during pendency of trial on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, without expression of opinion on merits. ¶36

Vijaypal Singh Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in an NDPS case involving recovery of 180 kg poppy husk (commercial quantity), given that he has undergone over one year and ten months of custody and none of the 30 prosecution witnesses has been examined. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

The petitioner has been behind bars for the last 01 year 10 months and 15 days as on 11.05.2025; investigation is complete, the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been presented, and the trial is yet to commence with none of the 30 prosecution witnesses examined; culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of trial and no useful purpose shall be served by further detention of the accused/petitioner.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The Court places reliance on the Supreme Court's order in Nandlal Mondal @ Abhay Mondal (accused released on bail after completion of 18 months of custody on account of protracted trial in an NDPS case involving commercial quantity of contraband) and states that reliance can also be placed on the consistent line of Supreme Court SLP orders in comparable NDPS commercial-quantity cases listed in para 7 of the order.

¶28

Key takeaways

Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India; relying on Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain (2023 AIR SC 1648), the Court proceeds on the view that fairness enshrined under Article 21 trumps the bar on granting bail in cases involving commercial quantity of contraband stipulated by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, where bail is sought on the ground of undue delay in trial.ratio¶30
The petition is allowed; without commenting upon the merits of the case, petitioner Vijaypal Singh is ordered to be released on regular bail during pendency of the trial, on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh (Harpreet Singh Brar, J., oral), 12.05.2025 — CRM-M-2943-2025 (O&M): Regular bail granted under S.483 BNSS to Vijaypal Singh, arraigned in FIR No.178 dt. 23.06.2023, PS STF Bathinda Range, u/SS. 15(C)/27/61/85 NDPS Act, 1985, arising from recovery of 180 kg poppy husk (commercial quantity) from a truck and a car. Investigation complete; final report u/S. 173 Cr.P.C. filed; trial not commenced — none of 30 PWs examined after 1 year 10 months 15 days of custody (as on 11.05.2025). Held: further detention serves no useful purpose and would violate Art. 21; following Nandlal Mondal @ Abhay Mondal (SLP (Crl.) No(s).12788/2023) and the consistent Supreme Court SLP line in NDPS commercial-quantity cases, and relying on Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain (2023 AIR SC 1648) — fairness under Art. 21 trumping the S.37 NDPS bar for delay-based bail — petitioner ordered released on regular bail during pendency of trial on furnishing bail bonds/sureties; no opinion expressed on merits.

¶1

CRM-M-2943-2025 (O&M) 1

¶2

218 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-2943-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.05.2025

VIJAYPAL SINGH

...PETITIONER

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

¶9

Present: Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG Punjab.

¶11

¶12

Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)

¶13

The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.178 dated 23.06.2023, under Section 15(C)/27/61/85 of NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Special Task Force, Bathinda Range, District Bathinda.

¶14

The facts of the present case are that on 23.06.2023, the police party headed by ASI Kulbir Singh were present at Malout, where he received a phone call from ASI Gurmeet Singh that he had stopped a Truck and a car and he had suspicion that there may be some intoxicant substance in the said Truck and Car. Investigating Officer alongwith police party reached at the spot and on checking the car, 4 bags containing 20 Kgs of poppy husk in each were recovered. On checking the Truck, 5 bags containing 20 Kgs of poppy husk in each were recovered. The person standing by the side of car disclosed his name as Parminder Singh and the persons standing near the truck disclosed their names

¶15

AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.05.12 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CRM-M-2943-2025 (O&M) 2

¶17

as Vijay Pal (petitioner herein) and Ramesh Kumar. Thus, total 180 Kgs poppy husk was recovered from the aforesaid accused persons.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is in judicial custody since 23.06.2023 and has undergone more than 01 year and 10 months of custody and till date not even a single prosecution witness has been examined out of total 30 PWs. As such case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nandlal Mondal @ Abhay Mondal Vs. The

¶19

State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No(s).12788/2023.

¶20

Learned State counsel produces the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record and per contra , opposes the grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that 180 kg of poppy husk was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, which falls within the ambit of commercial quantity. As such, he is not entitled to grant of regular bail by this Court. However, he could not controvert the fact that out of total 30 prosecution witnesses, not even a single PW has been examined till date and the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year 10 months and 15 days.

¶21

A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ Satender Ku-

¶22

mar Antil v. CBI’ (2022) 10 SCC 51 , with respect to prevailing conditions of undertrial prisoner in India has observed:

¶23

“6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offence, being charged with offences punishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and illiterate but also would include women. Thus, there is a culture of offence being inher-

¶24

AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.05.12 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CRM-M-2943-2025 (O&M) 3

¶26

ited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of colonial India, on the part of the investigating agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a demo cracy, there can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are conceptually opposite to each other.”

¶27

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bars from the last 01 year 10 months and 15 days as on 11.05.2025. Investigation is complete. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court and trial of the case is yet to commence as out of total 30 PWs, none has been examined so far. The culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of trial. No useful purpose shall be served by further detention of the accused/petitioner.

¶28

A two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nandlal Mondal @ Abhay Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No(s).12788/2023 released the accused on bail after completion of 18 months of custody on account of protracted trial in NDPS case involving commercial quantity of contraband. Reliance in this regard can also be placed upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Md. Aliul Islam @ Aliul Islam @ Alius Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No. 000736/2024, Debrata Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 14970-2023, Santarul Islam @ Santa Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 13169/2023, Indrajit Mondal @ Piglu Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 8512/2023, Narjul Islam @ Najbul Hoque Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 14172/2023, Subhashri Das @ Rana @ Subhoshree Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 15284/2023, Mithun Sk. & Anr. Vs. The AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.05.12 18:40 State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.016598/2023, SK. Nasiruddin @ Nasird- I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CRM-M-2943-2025 (O&M) 4 din SK. Vs. State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.003402/2024, Indadul Shah Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 12670/2023 , Hanef Kharsani @ Hanef Sheikh Vs. Union of India, Ripon Seikh & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 16663/2023, Moidul Sarkar Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl).No. 15668/ 2023, Saniya Bibi @ Soniya Bibi Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 2354/2024, Saddam Hossain Vs. State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 15496/2023, Bijon SK @ Golam Murselim Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No. 6046/2024 and Subhas Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 8823/2019.

¶30

Further, the culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of trial and as such, no useful purpose will be served by further detention of the petitioner-accused. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 AIR SC 1648 has held that the concept of fairness enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India would trump the bar on granting bail in cases involving commercial quantity of contraband, as stipulated by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Speaking through Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, has opined as follows:

¶31

“20. The standard to be considered therefore, is one, where the court would look at the material in a broad manner, and reasonably see whether the accused’s guilt may be proved. The judgments of this court have, therefore, emphasized that the satisfaction which courts are expected to record, i.e., that the accused may not be guilty, is only prima facie, based on a reasonable reading, which does not call for meticulous examination of the materials collected during investigation (as held in Union of India v. Rattan Malik). Grant of bail on ground of

¶32

AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.05.12 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

CRM-M-2943-2025 (O&M) 5

¶34

undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of Section 436A which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too (ref. Satender Kumar Antil supra). Having regard to these factors the court is of the opinion that in the facts of this case, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶35

21. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable. Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often than not, appalling.” (emphasis added)

¶36

In view the discussion above, the present petition is allowed.

¶37

Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the petitionerVijaypal Singh is ordered to be released on regular bail during pendency of the trial, on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

¶38

Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be expression of an opinion by this Court on merits of the case. The learned Court below is directed to proceed with the matter on its own merits, lest it may prejudice the trial.

¶39

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE

¶40

12.05.2025

¶41

Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶42

AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.05.12 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Vijaypal Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijaypal Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arjun Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Others

Deepti Sharma and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Rahul Ahuja and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Others

Surender Singh Vs State of Haryana

Amit Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Raju @ Rajinder Vs State of Haryana