Sanjeev Kumar @ Teetu Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Sanjeev Kumar @ Teetu Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, subject to conditions: (i) no inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case; (ii) furnish address at execution of bond and notify change of address to the trial Court till final decision of trial; (iii) not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, arraigned under Sections 21(C), 29 & 27-A NDPS Act for recovery of 253 gram heroin (a commercial quantity), is entitled to bail notwithstanding the twin conditions of Section-37 NDPS Act invoked by the State. +1 more

Court's answer

Taking the cumulative effect of all factors (custody of one year, two months and nine days; completed investigation; no prosecution witness examined; marginal excess over commercial-quantity threshold inclusive of polythene bag weight; no likelihood of tampering or non-cooperation), the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail and the petition deserves to be allowed.

Ratio / Principle

Because of delay in trial, the petitioner's fundamental right of speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 is being violated, and therefore the rigors of Section-37 NDPS Act can be relaxed in the instant case.

Key takeaways

Without commenting on merits, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to conditions: (i) no direct or indirect inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts; (ii) furnish address at execution of bond and notify any change to the trial Court till final decision of trial; (iii) not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.ratio¶73
Any observation made in the judgment is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.obiter¶79

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail – NDPS Act – Sections 21(C), 29 & 27-A – recovery of 253 gram heroin, a commercial quantity – first bail petition under Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (CRM-M No.27067 of 2026 O&M, FIR No.112 dated 22.03.2025, PS City Faridkot) – twin conditions of Section-37 NDPS Act urged by State – petitioner in custody one year, two months and nine days; investigation complete; none of seven prosecution witnesses examined; trial unlikely to conclude soon; petitioner acquitted in prior NDPS case – right to speedy trial under Article 21 infringed by trial delay – rigors of Section-37 relaxed following Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain (2023 SCC OnLine SC 352), Manmandal, Rabi Prakash (2023 SCC Online SC 1109), Santosh Pawar, Satender Kumar Antil ((2022) 10 SCC 51), Ismail Khan, Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK, Pamesh Arora, Hasanujjaman, Nandlal Mondal, Dataram ((2018) 3 SCC 22), Tapas Kumar Palit (2025 SCC Online SC 322) and Balwinder Singh (2024 SCC Online SC 4354), and this Court's observations in Ashwani Kumar @ Jalebi – petition allowed; release on personal and surety bonds subject to conditions (no inducement/threat/promise; furnish and update address; no departure from India without trial Court permission) – observations confined to bail decision, no bearing on merits (Surya Partap Singh, J.; decision dated 03.06.2026).

CRM-M No.27067 of 2026 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

206

CRM-M No.27067 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.06.2026

Sanjeev Kumar @ Teetu

......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Present : Mr. Samay Singh Sandhawalia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):

This is first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the ‘Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023’. This petition pertains to a case arising out of FIR No. 112 dated 22.03.2025 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 21(C), 29 & 27-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’ only, Police Station City Faridkot, District Faridkot.

The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘ASI Tej Singh’, who had reported that on 22.03.2025 at about 04.30 P.M. when he along with other police officials was deputed for patrolling duty near Veerewala Road, Faridkot, he spotted a one person carrying a blue coloured bag. As per above named police officer, on the basis of suspicion he was apprehended, and that on search of his body 253 gram of ‘Heorin’ was recovered from his possession, who upon inquiry disclosed his name as

MANOJ KUMAR 2026.06.03 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M No.27067 of 2026 (O&M) 2

‘Sanjeev Kumar @ Teetu’.

It is the case of the prosecution that on recovery of above mentioned contraband requisite formalities with regard to seizure and sealing of contraband, slapping of FIR and formal arrest of petitioner were completed and further investigation taken up.

4 The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner and reply to the petition. The same be taken on record. 5. Heard. 6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already served sentence for a period of more than one year, two months and nine days, and that investigation in this case is already complete, and therefore, nothing has has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner. As per learned counsel for the petitioner except one case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, the petitioner is not presently facing any other criminal case, and that, the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. While claiming that right of speedy trial, and the fundamental right of personal liberty is being infringed, the benefit of bail has been sought for the petitioner.

The learned State counsel has controverted the above mentioned arguments. According to learned State counsel there are very specific and categorical allegations against the petitioner, with regard to involvement of petitioner in the commission of crime. As per learned State counsel the quantity of recovered contraband comes within the ambit of commercial quantity, and therefore, the rigors of Section-37 of NDPS Act are attracted in

MANOJ KUMAR 2026.06.03 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M No.27067 of 2026 (O&M) 3

the present case. According to learned State counsel unless the twin conditions prescribed under Section-37 of NDPS Act, are complied with the petitioner should not be released on bail.

The record has been perused carefully.

Since the recovery of contraband in the case in hand comes within the ambit of commercial quantity, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State’ (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352 are relevant. In the abovementioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has 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 which is applicable to offences under the Act.

In this regard it is also relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘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 SCC Online SC 1109, extended the benefit of bail to the accused, who had been incarcerated for a period of almost 2-3 years and the trial was likely to take considerable time. The above-mentioned benefit has been given by observing that prolonged incarceration generally militates 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.

In addition to above, in a recently pronounced verdict in the case

MANOJ KUMAR 2026.06.03 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M No.27067 of 2026 (O&M) 4

of ‘Santosh Pawar Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr.’ Criminal Appeal No.4883/2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India 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 above-mentioned case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India 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.

Similarly in another case i.e. 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 of India, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India expressed the opinion that Section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods] would apply in such cases.

In the case of ‘Ismail Khan @ Pathan vs. State of Rajasthan’ Criminal Appeal No.4911 of 2025 with regard to recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic substance the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India 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.

The similar benefit has been given in another appeal, i.e. SLP No.15699-2025 titled as ‘Ebrahim @ Ibrahim SK vs. The State of West

MANOJ KUMAR 2026.06.03 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M No.27067 of 2026 (O&M) 5

Bengal’, and in the case of ‘Pamesh Arora vs. UT Chandigarh’ Criminal Appeal No.4872 of 2025.

In the case of ‘Hasanujjaman & Ors. V/s The State of West Bengal’ SLP (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023, the benefit of bail has been accorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to an accused, who was found in the possession of 115 bottles of phensedyl, by observing that:-

a) the petitioner was in custody for a period of one year and three months;

b) the investigation in that case was complete and charge-sheet had been filed, but charges were yet to be framed;

c) the conclusion of trial would take some time; and

d) the petitioner had no criminal antecedents.

In view of abovementioned prevailing factors, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that there is substantial compliance of Section-37 of NDPS Act.

Similarly, in the case of ‘Nandlal Mondal @Abhay Mondal V/s The State of West Bengal’ SLP(Crl) No.12788/2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India afforded the benefit of bail to the accused, who was found in possession of 10,000 ml of codeine phosphate, and was in custody for a period of one and a half year, by considering that conclusion of trial would take long time.

If the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed in the light of above-mentioned principles of law, it transpires that:-

i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of one year,

two months and nine days;

MANOJ KUMAR 2026.06.03 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M No.27067 of 2026 (O&M) 6

ii) that although the petitioner was prosecuted for one case under NDPS Act, but he has already been acquitted in the above mentioned case. Thus the petitioner has no criminal history with regard to involvement in the commission of crime under NDPS Act;

iii) that the trial is taking place at a slow pace as out of seven prosecution witnesses not even a single witness has been examined, so far;

iv) that because of delay in trial, the fundamental right of speedy trial, guaranteed to the petitioner, is being violated, and therefore, the rigors of Section-37 of NDPS Act can be relaxed in the instant case;

v) that quantity of recovered contraband is marginally above the lower threshold fixed for commercial quantity and the above mentioned weight of contraband, i.e. 253 grams, also includes the weight of polythene bag. Thus the observations recorded by this Court in the case ‘Ashwani Kumar @ Jalebi Vs. State of Punjab,’ Law Finder Doc ID # 1760118, are applicable to the present case;

vi) that the investigation in this case is already complete, and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

vii) that the trial of this case is not likely to be concluded in near

MANOJ KUMAR 2026.06.03 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M No.27067 of 2026 (O&M) 7

future;

viii) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose;

ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses;

x) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.

In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another’, (2018) 3 SCC 22, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of

MANOJ KUMAR 2026.06.03 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M No.27067 of 2026 (O&M) 8

bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case”.

The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation’ (2022) 10 SCC 51 are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that “the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice”.

Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that “if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

MANOJ KUMAR 2026.06.03 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M No.27067 of 2026 (O&M) 9

India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently”.

To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to an undertrial prisoner, as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in ‘Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and another’ 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the aforesaid factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed . The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, the abovesaid benefit shall be subject to following conditions:-

i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any other authority;

MANOJ KUMAR 2026.06.03 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M No.27067 of 2026 (O&M) 10

ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and

iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of trial Court.

It is, however, made clear that any observation made hereinabove is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE

03.06.2026

Manoj Bhutani

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

MANOJ KUMAR 2026.06.03 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document