Angrej Singh Vs State of Punjab

This petition for bail is the t h ird petition, filed by the petiti o ner under Se c tion 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nag a rik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been file d with regard to a case arising o ut of FIR No.32 dated 14.09.2 0 23, for the c o mmission of offence punishab l e under Sections 21, 23, 25, 2 7 -A and 29 o f Narcotic Drugs and Psycho t ropic Substances Act, hereinafter being ref e rred to as ‘NDPS Act’ and Sect i ons 41/52-A of Prisons Act, Po l ice Station S p ecial Operation Cell, Amritsar, District Amritsar.

¶13

The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instanc e of ‘Inspecto r Sukhbir Singh’, who reporte d that on 14.09.2025, when he w as leading a team of police officials, he rece i ved a tip-off from a reliable so u rce that a lar g e quantity of ‘Heroin’ was being smuggled by ‘Gurmeet Si n gh’ and ‘An g rej Singh’ (petitioner herein) f r om across the border. It was a lso

¶14

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CRM-M-31066-2025 (O&M) 2

¶16

reported that the informant had also s t ated about the arrival of a l a rge consign m ent of ‘Heroin’ from across the B order in the recent past.

¶17

It is the case of the prosecut i on that in view of abovementio n ed informati o n, a picket was deputed and a barricade was laid to nab the aboveme n tioned drug dealers. As per prosecution, the abovementio n ed efforts led to recovery of 1.600 kg o f ‘Heroin’ from the possessio n of ‘Gurmeet Singh’ and ‘Angrej Singh’ (pet i tioner herein).

¶18

Since advance notice has a l ready been served upon the State, Mr. I.P.S . Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respond e ntState. He n ce service of notice is hereby dispensed with. The learned S t ate Counsel h as filed custody certificate of t h e petitioner. The same be take n on record. N o formal reply has been filed b y the State. However, the lear n ed State Co u nsel has orally opposed the present petition.

¶19

Heard.

¶20

It has been contended on be h alf of petitioner that the petiti o ner is innoce n t, who has been falsely implic a ted in the present case, and tha t he has alrea d y faced prolonged incarceratio n for being in custody for a pe r iod of more t han two years and five months. According to learned counsel for the petiti o ner, there is a question mark w ith regard to the manner, in w h ich the alleg e d recovery of contraband had taken place, and that the trial is taking pl a ce at a very slow pace, as out o f thirty one prosecution witnes s es, only seven have been examined so far. It has been further argued by lear n ed counsel f o r the petitioner that co-accuse d of the petitioner, namely Gur m eet Singh, ha s already been accorded the ben e fit of bail by this Court.

¶21

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CRM-M-31066-2025 (O&M) 3

¶23

The learned State C o unsel has controverted the aboveme n tioned arguments. Accordin g to learned State Counsel, the recovery of contraband in the present case comes within the ambit of ‘commer c ial quantity’ and therefore, unless the twin conditions enshri n ed under Se c tion-37 of NDPS Act are satisfi e d, the benefit of bail should no t be accorded to the petitioner.

¶24

The record has been perused carefully. 9. The principles governing t h e benefit of bail in a case u n der NDPS A c t, pertaining to recovery of c o mmercial quantity, have been l aid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court i n the case of ‘Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v . State’ (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352 are relev a nt, wherein t h e Hon’ble Supreme Court has h eld that grant of bail on accou n t of undue de l ay in trial cannot be said to b e fettered under Section-37 of the NDPS A c t, given the imperative of Se c tion 436-A which is applicabl e to offences u nder the Act.

¶25

In this regard it is also relev a nt to mention here that the Hon ’ ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘ M anmandal and Another v. Stat e of West Be n gal’, Special Leave Petition ( C riminal) No.8656 of 2023 deci d ed on 14.09.2023 and ‘Rabi Prakash v. Stat e of Odisha’, 2023 SCC Online SC 1109, ext e nded the benefit of bail to the a ccused, who had been incarcer a ted for a peri o d of almost 2-3 years and the t rial was likely to take consider a ble time. Th e above-mentioned benefit h a s been given by observing t hat prolonge d incarceration generally mil i tates against the most precious fundame n tal right guaranteed under Art i cle-21 of the Constitution, an d in

¶26

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CRM-M-31066-2025 (O&M)

¶28

4

¶29

such a s i tuation, the constitutional principles must override the statu t ory embargo c ontained under Section-37 of t h e NDPS Act.

¶30

In addition to above, in a r ecently pronounced verdict in the case of ‘ S antosh Pawar Vs. State of Chh a ttishgarh & Anr.’ Criminal Ap p eal No.4883/ 2 025, the Hon’ble Supreme Co u rt of India observed that rigor s of Section 37 of NDPS Act will not be a b ar for considering the case o f an accused f or bail as it comes with a co n dition that the prosecution w o uld press for an early completion of trial. In the above-mentioned case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India hel d that appellant who was b e ing prosecuted for being in possession of commercial quantity of narc o tic substanc e , was entitled for bail in view o f her incarceration for a perio d of 19 months.

¶31

Similarly in another case i. e . in the case of ‘Satender Ku m ar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigati o n’ (2022) 10 SCC 51 prolon g ed incarcera t ion and inordinate delay eng a ged the attention of the Hon ’ ble Supreme Court of India, which considere d the correct approach towards b ail, with res p ect to several enactments, incl u ding Section 37 NDPS Act. T he Hon’ble S upreme Court of India express e d the opinion that Section 436 A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [whi c h requires inter alia the accuse d to be enlar g ed on bail if the trial is not c o ncluded within specified peri o ds] would ap p ly in such cases.

¶32

In the case of ‘Ismail Kha n @ Pathan vs. State of Rajast h an’ Criminal Appeal No.4911 of 2025 with regard to recovery of commer c ial quantity o f narcotic substance the Hon’b l e Supreme Court of India accor d ed

¶33

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

CRM-M-31066-2025 (O&M)

¶35

5

¶36

the bene f it of bail to the accused in vie w of prolonged incarceration f o r a period of 02 years and 08 months of the accused.

¶37

The similar benefit has bee n taken in another appeal i.e. S LP No.1569 9 -2025 titled as ‘Ebrahim @ I b rahim SK vs. The State of W est Bengal’ a nd in the case of ‘Pamesh A r ora vs. UT Chandigarh’ Crim i nal Appeal N o.4872 of 2025.

¶38

In the case of ‘Hasanujjam a n & Ors. V/s The State of W est Bengal’ S LP (Crl.) No.3221 of 2023, th e benefit of bail has been accor d ed by the H o n’ble Supreme Court of India t o an accused, who was found in the possessio n of 115 bottles of phensedyl, b y observing that:-

¶39

a) the petitioner was in custod y for a period of one year and t h ree months;

¶40

b) the investigation in that ca s e was complete and charge-s h eet had been filed, but charges w ere yet to be framed;

¶41

c) the conclusion of trial woul d take some time; and

¶42

d) the petitioner had no crimin a l antecedents.

¶43

In view of abovementioned prevailing factors, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Cou r t of India that there is substa n tial complian c e of Section-37 of NDPS Act.

¶44

Similarly, in the case of ‘Na n dlal Mondal @Abhay Mondal V/s The Stat e of West Bengal’ SLP(Crl) No . 12788/2023, the Hon’ble Supr e me Court of I ndia afforded the benefit of ba i l to the accused, who was foun d in possessio n of 10,000 ml of codeine ph o sphate, and was in custody f o r a

¶45

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶46

CRM-M-31066-2025 (O&M)

¶47

6

¶48

period of one and a half year, by consid e ring that conclusion of trial w o uld take long time.

¶49

If the facts and circumstanc e s of the present case are analyzed

¶50

in the lig h t of above-mentioned principle s of law, it transpires that:-

¶51

i) that the petitioner is alread y in custody for a period of m ore than two years and five mon t hs;

¶52

ii) that the petitioner has clean a ntecedents;

¶53

iii) that on the ground of parity a lso, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail as his co-acc u sed Gurmeet Singh, having si m ilar role, has already been enlarg e d on bail;

¶54

i v ) that nothing has been left t o be recovered from the posses s ion of petitioner;

¶55

v ) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, as out of thirty one prosecution w itnesses, only seven have been examined so far;

¶56

v i ) that the detention of the p e titioner in judicial lockup is not likely to serve any purpose;

¶57

v i i) that there is nothing on rec o rd to show that if released on b ail, the petitioner may tamper w ith the evidence or influence the witnesses; and

¶58

v i ii) that there is nothing on rec o rd to show that if released on b ail, the petitioner will not partici p ate/cooperate in the trial.

¶59

In the present case, the pr i nciples of law laid down by the Hon’ble S upreme Court of India in the case of “Dataram versus Stat e of Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R. C .R. (Criminal) 131, are relev a nt, wherein i t has been observed that “a f undamental postulate of crim i nal jurisprud e nce is the presumption of i n nocence, meaning thereby th a t a

¶60

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶61

CRM-M-31066-2025 (O&M) 7

¶62

person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a r e verse onus has been placed o n an accused w ith regard to some specific off e nces but that is another matter a nd does not d etract from the fundamental p o stulate in respect of other offen c es. Yet anot h er important facet of our crimi n al jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is th e general rule and putting a p e rson in jail or in a prison or in a correctio n home (whichever expressio n one may wish to use) is an exceptio n . Unfortunately, some of these b asic principles appear to have been lost sigh t of with the result that m o re and more persons are b e ing incarcera t ed and for longer periods. T h is does not do any good to our criminal j urisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the gran t or denial of bail is entirely the discretion o f the judge considering a case but even so, t he exercise of judicial discretio n has been circumscribed by a l a rge number o f decisions rendered by this Co u rt and by every High Court in the country. Y et, occasionally there is a nec e ssity to introspect whether den y ing bail to a n accused person is the right t h ing to do on the facts and in the circumst a nces of a case”.

¶63

The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Cour t of India in the case of ‘Satender Kum a r Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investiga t ion and Another’, (2022) 10 S C C 51, are also relevant in this c a se. In the ab o vementioned case, it has been o bserved that “the rate of convic t ion in crimin a l cases in India is abysmally l o w. It appears to us that this fa c tor weighs o n the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications i n a negative s ense. Courts tend to think that t he possibility of a conviction b e ing nearer to rarity, bail applications will ha v e to be decided strictly, contrar y to

¶64

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶65

CRM-M-31066-2025 (O&M)

¶66

8

¶67

legal principles. We cannot mix up consi d eration of a bail application, w h ich is not pu n itive in nature with that of a p o ssible adjudication by way of t r ial. On the c o ntrary, an ultimate acquittal w ith continued custody would b e a case of g r ave injustice”.

¶68

Recently, in the case of ‘ Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 3 2 2, the Hon’ble Supreme Cour t of India ha s observed that “if an accus e d is to get a final verdict after incarcera t ion of six to seven years in j a il as an undertrial prisoner, t h en, definitel y , it could be said that his right t o have a speedy trial under Art i cle 21 of the Constitution has been infringe d ”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble S upreme Court of India in the a b ovementioned case that “delays are bad for t h e accused and extremely bad fo r the victims, for Indian society a nd for the c r edibility of our justice syste m , which is valued. Judges are the masters o f their Courtrooms and the C riminal Procedure Code prov i des many to o ls for the Judges to use in o r der to ensure that cases proceed efficientl y ”.

¶69

To elucidate further, this C o urt is conscious of the basic a nd fundame n tal principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasona b le, fair and j ust procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitutio n of India. Th i s constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mand a ted by Hon’ b le Apex court in “ Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab a nd Another” , 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

¶70

If the cumulative effect o f all the abovementioned fact o rs, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads t o a

¶71

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶72

CRM-M-31066-2025 (O&M)

¶73

9

¶74

conclusion that the petitioner is entitled f or the benefit of bail, and that the present p e tition deserves to be allowed. 23. Accordingly, without comm e nting anything on the merits o f the case, the p resent petition is hereby allowed . The petitioner is hereby ord e red to be released on bail on furnishing pers o nal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfacti o n of learned trial Court. Howe v er the abovementioned conces s ion shall be s u bject to following conditions:-

¶75

(i ) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make a ny inducement, threat or prom i se to any person acquainted w ith the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such f a cts to the Court or to any other a uthority;

¶76

(i i ) that the petitioner shall at th e time of execution of bond, fur n ish the address to the Court co n cerned and shall notify the cha n ge in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the t r ial; and

¶77

(i i i) that the petitioner shall not l e ave India without prior permis s ion of the trial Court;

¶78

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)

¶79

JUDGE

¶80

27.02.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasone d Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶81

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.28 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Angrej Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Angrej 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

Ved Parkash Vs State of Haryana

Shakib Ali Vs State of Haryana

Mani Karan Singh @ Mani Vs State of Punjab

Manminderjit Singh Alias Manga Vs State of Punjab

Jagdip Singh Vs State of Punjab

Harsh Vs State of Haryana