Devraj Vs State of Punjab

The instant one is the second petition as filed by the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No.54, dated 12.08.2024, registered under Section 22 of the NDPS Act (offence under Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added lateron), at Police Station Cheema, District Sangrur. His previous petition bearing CRM-M-9393-2025 had been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 27.11.2025 as passed by this Court.

¶12

As per the allegations, on 12.08.2024, the petitioner was apprehended by a police party on the basis of suspicion and 1000 intoxicating tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride salt had been recovered from his conscious possession, which was taken into custody by the police. He was formally arrested. Investigation now stands concluded.

¶13

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has

¶14

HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.24 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CRM-M-10895-2026 (O&M)

¶16

-2-

¶17

been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody for a period of about 02 years. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. The co-accused have been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be given the same benefit. His further incarceration is not going to serve any useful purpose. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶18

Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail.

¶19

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶20

The petitioner is in custody since 16.08.2024. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. As such, no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. It is well settled proposition of law that grant of bail on account of delay in trial and long period of incarceration is to be considered in the light of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, wherein it was held that grant of bail on account of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, given the imperative of Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. which is applicable to offence under the Act. It was also observed that jails are overcrowded and their living conditions are, more often than not, appalling. The danger of unjustified imprisonment is that inmates are more likely to be hardened rather than reformed. Reliance can also be placed upon Manmandal and

¶21

HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.24 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

-3-

¶23

CRM-M-10895-2026 (O&M)

¶24

another v. State of West Bengal, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on 14.09.2023 and Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 Live Law (SC) 533, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had extended benefit of bail to the accused, who had been incarcerated for a long period by observing that prolonged incarceration militated against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

¶25

Reliance can also be placed upon judgment dated 14.11.2025 passed in Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & another passed in Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025 , in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act will not be a bar for considering the case of an accused for bail as it comes with a condition that the prosecution would press for an early completion of trial. In the abovementioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that appellant, who was being prosecuted for being in possession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, was entitled for bail in view of her incarceration for a period of 19 months.

¶26

Similarly in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51, prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The Court expressed the opinion that Section 436A (which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods) of the

¶27

HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.24 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

CRM-M-10895-2026 (O&M)

¶29

-4-

¶30

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 would apply.

¶31

In the case of Ismail Khan @ Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan passed in Criminal Appeal No.4911 of 2025, with regard to recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court accorded the benefit of bail to the accused in view of prolonged incarceration for a period of 02 years and 08 months of the accused.

¶32

The similar benefit has been extended in another appeal i.e. SLP No.15699-2025 titled as Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK vs. The State of West Bengal and in the case of Pamesh Arora vs. UT Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.4872 of 2025 .

¶33

On analyzing the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case in the light of the aforementioned principles of law, it transpires that the petitioner has suffered prolonged incarceration for a period of about 02 years, the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; the continued detention of the petitioner is not likely to serve any fruitful purpose; there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate in the trial or will abscond. As such, the prolonged detention of the petitioner amounts to drastic change in circumstances extending fresh ground to petitioner to seek bail.

¶34

In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that a case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the extent of two sureties in the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned, and subject to the condition that

¶35

HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.24 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

CRM-M-10895-2026 (O&M)

¶37

-5-

¶38

he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case. He shall appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing except when his presence has been exempted by the trial Court. He shall surrender his passport, if any, furnish details of his cell phone and Aadhar card, and shall not change his mobile number(s) during the pendency of the trial.

¶39

It is clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner.

¶40

Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.

¶41

(MANISHA BATRA) 23.07.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶42

HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.24 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Devraj v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devraj 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

Rajesh @ Rajesh Kumar and Another Vs State of Haryana

Prabhjot Singh Vs State of Punjab

Nazim Khan Vs State of Punjab and Another

Sarabjit Singh and Anr. Vs Happy Chhabra

Pala Singh and Another Vs State of Haryana and Another

Raman Vs State of Punjab