Vikram Singh @ Bikram Singh @ Vicky Vs State of Punjab

Th e instant one is the second peti t ion preferred by the petitione r under Section 4 83 of Bharatiya Nagarik Sur a ksha Sanhita, 2023 (for shor t “BNSS”) for g r ant of regular bail in case a r ising out of FIR No.35 date d 18.04.2017 regi s tered under Section 22 of N a rcotic Drugs and Psychotropi c Substances Act (for short “NDPS Act”) at P olice Station Sudhar, Distric t Ludhiana. Th e previous petition as filed b y him had been dismissed a s withdrawn vide o rder dated 29.10.2025.

¶14

Th e aforementioned FIR was registered on the allegations that o n 18.04.2017, the petitioner and co-accused Jagd i sh Singh were apprehended o n the basis of s u spicion and recovery of 160 grams of intoxicating powe r (diphenoxylate h ydrochloride) was effected fr o m their conscious possession . They were form a lly arrested. Investigation now stands concluded.

¶15

AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.19 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶16

CRM-M-13243-2026 (O&M) 2

¶17

It i s argued by learned counsel fo r the petitioner that he has bee n falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery has been planted upon him. H e had been exten d ed benefit of interim bail pre v iously. Now he is in custod y since 25.10.202 4 . The trial will take considera b le time to conclude. No usefu l purpose would b e served by detaining him in c u stody anymore. His prolonge d incarceration mi l itates against his fundamental r ight to speedy trial. With thes e broad submissions, it is urged that he deserve s to be released on bail and th e petition deserve s to be allowed.

¶18

Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the statu s report has sub m itted that this petition is not maintainable being the secon d petition. The ri g ors of Section 37 of the NDPS A ct are attracted in this case, th e recovery being c ommercial in nature. The tria l is proceeding at a proper pac e and there is not h ing to show that there would b e any undue delay in conclusio n of the same. It is, therefore, argued that the p etition does not deserves to b e allowed.

¶19

Thi s Court has heard the rival sub m issions made by learned counse l for the parties at considerable length.

¶20

So far as the question of mainta i nability of this petition bein g successive one i s concerned, it may be mention e d that, an accused has a right t o move successiv e bail application for grant of ba i l and it is the duty of the Court , while entertaini n g such a subsequent bail appli c ation, to consider that any fres h ground which persuade it to take a view diff e rent from the one taken in th e earlier applicati o n is made out or not. It is als o required to be noted that ever y

¶21

AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.19 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶22

CRM-M-13243-2026 (O&M) 3

¶23

day spent by an accused in custody provides a n ew cause of action for filing a bail application under certain circumstances. H e cannot be kept in custody fo r indefinite perio d and the bail application can b e considered even if it is file d repeatedly. The denial of bail comes with a co n dition that the prosecution mus t press for early completion of the trial. The petitioner is in custody sinc e 25.10.2024. T h e trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 0 4 prosecution wit n esses have been examined so f a r. It is well settled propositio n of law that gr a nt of bail on account of del a y in trial and long period o f incarceration is to be considered in the light o f 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 o f bail on account of undue dela y in trial cannot b e said to be fettered under Sec t ion 37 of the NDPS Act, give n the imperative o f Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. whi c h is applicable to offence unde r the Act. It wa s also observed that jails are overcrowded and their livin g conditions are, more often than not, appalli n g. The danger of unjustifie d imprisonment i s that inmates are more likely to be hardened rather tha n reformed. Relia n ce can also be placed upon Manmandal and 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 LiveLaw (SC) 533, wherein the Ho n ’ble Supreme Court had extend e d benefit of bail to the accuse d who had been incarcerated for a long perio d by observing that prolonge d incarceration militated against the most precio u s fundamental right guarantee d under Article 2 1 of the Constitution and in su c h a situation, the constitutiona l

¶24

AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.19 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶25

CRM-M-13243-2026 (O&M) 4

¶26

principles must override the statutory embargo contained under Section 37 o f the NDPS Act.

¶27

Rel i ance can also be placed upo n Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025, which is a recentl y pronounced ver d ict of Hon’ble Supreme Court o bserving that rigors of Sectio n 37 of NDPS Ac t will not be a bar for considerin g the case of an accused for bai l as it comes wi t h a condition that the prosec u tion would press for an earl y completion of t r ial. In the above-mentioned ca s e, the Hon’ble Supreme Cour t held that appel l ant who was being prosecut e d for being in possession o f commercial qua n tity of narcotic substance, was entitled for bail in view of he r incarceration for a period of 19 months.

¶28

Si m ilarly in another case i.e. in th e case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 prolonged incarceratio n and inordinate d e lay engaged the attention of th e Hon’ble Supreme Court, whic h considered the c o rrect approach towards bail, wi t h respect to several enactments , including Sectio n 37 NDPS Act. The court ex p ressed the opinion that Sectio n 436A (which re q uires inter alia the accused to b e enlarged on bail if the trial i s not concluded w ithin specified periods) of the C riminal Procedure Code, 1973 would apply.

¶29

In t he case of Ismail Khan @ Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan Crminal Appeal No.4911 of 2025 with reg a rd to recovery of commercia l quantity of narc o tic substance, the Hon’ble Sup r eme Court accorded the benefi t

¶30

AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.19 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶31

CRM-M-13243-2026 (O&M)

¶32

5

¶33

of bail to the ac c used in view of prolonged inca r ceration for a period of 02 year s and 08 months of the accused.

¶34

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

¶35

On analyzing the peculiar facts a n d circumstances of the presen t case in the ligh t of the aforementioned princip l es of law, it transpires that th e petitioner has s u ffered prolonged incarceratio n for a period of 01 year, 0 7 months and 23 d ays. The trial is not likely to be concluded in near future a s only 04 out of 10 prosecution witnesses ha v e been examined so far. Th e continued deten t ion of the petitioner is not like l y to serve any fruitful purpose . There is nothing on record to show that if releas e d on bail, the petitioner will no t participate in th e trial or will abscond.

¶36

In v iew of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that a case is made ou t for grant of bail to the petition e r at this stage. Accordingly, th e petition is allow e d and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject t o his furnishing p e rsonal as well as surety bonds t o the satisfaction of the learne d trial Court/Chie f Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magi s trate concerned.

¶37

It i s , however, clarified that the ob s ervations made above shall no t be construed as a n expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the cas e and shall not inf l uence the outcome of the trial i n any manner.

¶38

AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.19 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶39

CRM-M-13243-2026 (O&M) 6

¶40