Lucky Bawa Singh vs State of Punjab

Manisha Batra, J.

The instant one is the second petition as filed by the petitioner seeking benefit of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.93, dated 19.06.2024, registered under Section 22 of the NDPS Act (offence under Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added lateron), at Police Station Special Task Force, STF Wing, District SAS Nagar (Mohali). His previous petition bearing No.CRM-M-69541-2025 had been dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 18.03.2026.

As per the allegations, on 19.06.2024, a secret information was received by the police to the effect that the present petitioner was indulged in the sale of intoxicating tablets and on that very day also, he was present at the roundabout of Malleana gate on Lopo Dohar road while waiting for some customers to supply intoxicating tablets to them and could be apprehended. Believing the secret information to be true, a raiding party was formed which reached at the informed place and apprehended the petitioner. On conducting search, 1300 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride were recovered from his conscious possession, which were taken into custody by the police. The petitioner was formally arrested. Investigation now stands completed.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery has been planted upon him. He has suffered incarceration for a period of more than 02 years. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 01 out of 32 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. His prolonged incarceration militates against his fundamental right of liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished a new ground to him to seek concession of bail afresh. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be extended the benefit of bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the petition being a successive one is not maintainable. It is also argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as commercial quantity of intoxicating tablets had been recovered from his conscious possession. Rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in this case. It is, therefore, stressed that he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail.

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

So far as the question of maintainability of the petition is concerned, it may be mentioned that an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, and it is the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a subsequent bail application, to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail petition was rejected. The fresh grounds which persuade the Court to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application are also required to be recorded. Reference in this regard can be made to Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 11 SCC 458, wherein it was so observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The petitioner is in custody since 19.06.2024. 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 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.

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 above mentioned 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.

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 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 would apply.

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.

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.

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. 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 subject to his furnishing personal bonds as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned and further subject to the conditions that upon his release, he shall provide his Aadhar Card details and details of his mobile phone number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switch on all the times. He shall provide his address where he would be residing after release and shall not change the same without informing the concerned IO/SHO.

Breach of any of the above conditions shall be a ground for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner.

It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial.

Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.