Ajmer Singh vs State Of Punjab

1
CRM CRM-M-54039 CRM CRM 54039 54039-2026 54039 2026 2026 2026


115 115 115 115
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT AT AT
CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH

CRM CRM-M-54039 CRM CRM 54039 54039-2026 54039 2026 2026 2026

Ajmer Singh
….Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
….Respondent

Date of Decision: Date of Decision: November 03 Date of Decision: Date of Decision: November 03 November 03, 2026 November 03 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026
Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: November 03 Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: November 03 November 03, 2026 November 03 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026

CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:- Present: Mr. Raunaq Singh Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner.
Present: Present:

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.


SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL)

nd
Present 2 petition has been filed under Section 483 of the
BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 439 Cr. P.C.) for seeking grant of regular
bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.111 dated 08.07.2025,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21-C/ 25/ 29/ 61/ 85 of
the NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station Kamboj, Amritsar (Rural).
2. The FIR in question pertains to recovery of 1 kg. 279 grams of
Heroin.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner
is in custody since 08.07.2025. Learned counsel has submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.03 17:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

2
CRM CRM-M-54039 CRM CRM 54039 54039-2026 54039 2026 2026 2026

counsel has further submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act
have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case
suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has iterated that the trial is
delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner.
Learned counsel has urged that co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Vicky
and Sikander Singh have been granted the concession of regular bail by this
Court, vide orders dated 26.08.2026 passed in CRM CRM-M-35486 35486-2026 2026 and
CRM CRM 35486 35486 2026 2026
dated 20.07.2026 passed in CRM CRM CRM-M-25901 CRM 25901 25901-2026 25901 2026 2026, respectively. Learned 2026
counsel has submitted that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more
than 01 year. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4. Per contra , learned State counsel has filed short reply by way of
an affidavit dated 31.10.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record.
Raising submissions in tandem with the said short reply, learned State
counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations
raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner
does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel
has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed.
Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated
02.11.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record.
5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through
the available records of the case.
6. The petitioner was arrested on 08.07.2025, whereinafter
investigation was carried out and challan qua the petitioner has been







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.03 17:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

3
CRM CRM-M-54039 CRM CRM 54039 54039-2026 54039 2026 2026 2026

presented on 05.01.2026. Total 19 prosecution witnesses have been cited,
out of which, none has been examined till date. It is, thus, indubitable that
conclusion of the trial will take long time. The rival contentions raised at Bar
give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the
course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into
these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing
tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner
absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution
evidence.
6.1. The trial is indeed procrastinating and folly thereof cannot be
saddled upon the petitioner. As per custody certificate dated 02.11.2026 filed
by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration
for a period of 01 year, 03 months and 21 days.
6.2. Further, as per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is
stated to be involved in other FIR(s). However, this factum cannot be a
ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the
petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular
bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of
the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. U.P. U.P.
and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 ; a Division Bench judgment of
the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2)
RCR (Criminal) 477 RCR (Criminal) 477 RCR (Criminal) 477 RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.03 17:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

4
CRM CRM-M-54039 CRM CRM 54039 54039-2026 54039 2026 2026 2026

titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of H Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana Akhilesh Singh v. State of H Akhilesh Singh v. State of H aryana aryana aryana , decided on 29.11.2021, and
Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.
6.3. This Court in a judgment titled as Kulwinder versus State of Kulwinder versus State of Kulwinder versus State of Kulwinder versus State of
Punjab Punjab passed in CRM Punjab Punjab CRM CRM-M-64074 CRM 64074 64074-2024 64074 2024 2024 2024 (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying
upon the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul
Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi
Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494;
Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2023 INSC
311; Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 dated 07.02.2020 titled as “Chitta
Biswas Alias Subhas vs. The State of West Bengal”; “Nitish Adhikary @
Bapan vs. The State of West Bengal”, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No.5530-2022 dated 22.08.2022 titled as “Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh
vs. The State of Gujarat”; Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated
05.08.2022 titled as Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma vs. Union of India,
and Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024(4) RCR
(Criminal) 172; has held, thus:
7.8. The right to a speedy and expeditious trial is not only a
“
vital safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration; to mitigate
anxiety and concern accompanying the accusation as well as to curtail any
impairment in the ability of an accused to defend himself, but there is an
overarching societal interest paving way for a speedy trial. This right has
been repeatedly actuated in the recent past and the ratio decidendi of the
above-referred to Supreme Court’s judgments have laid down a series of
decisions opening up new vistas of fundamental rights. The concept of
speedy trial is amalgamated into the Article 21 as an essential part of the
fundamental right to life and liberty, guaranteed and preserved under our
Constitution. The right to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint
imposed at the time of the arrest of the accused and consequent
incarceration which continues at all stages, namely, the stage of
investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible
prejudice that may result due to impermissible and avoidable delay since







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.03 17:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

5
CRM CRM-M-54039 CRM CRM 54039 54039-2026 54039 2026 2026 2026

the time of the commission of the offence till the criminal proceedings
consummate into a finality, could be averted. The speedy trial, early
hearing and quick disposal are sine qua non of criminal jurisprudence. The
overcrowded Court-dockets, the heavy volume of work and the resultant
pressure on the prosecution and the Police, indubitably keeps the entire
criminal jurisprudential mechanism under stress and strain. However, this
cannot be an excuse for keeping the sword of Damocles hanging on the
accused for an indefinite period of time. It does not serve any credit to the
criminal justice system, rather it makes for a sad state of affairs. The
guarantee of a speedy trial is intended to avoid oppression and prevent
delay by imposing on the Court and the prosecution an obligation to
proceed with the trial with a reasonable dispatch. The guarantee serves a
threefold purpose. Firstly, it protects the accused against oppressive pre-
trial imprisonment; secondly, it relieves the accused of the anxiety and
public suspicion due to unresolved criminal charges and lastly, it protects
against the risk that evidence will be lost or memories dimmed by the
passage of time, thus, impairing the ability of the accused to defend
himself. It goes without saying that the consequences of pre-trial detention
are grave. Accused, presumed innocent, till proven otherwise, are
subjected to psychological and physical deprivations of jail-life, usually
under onerous conditions. Equally important, the burden of detention of
such an accused frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his
family.

There is yet another aspect of the matter which deserves
consideration at this stage. The allegations in the present case relate to
accused being involved in an FIR relating to commercial quantity of
contraband under the NDPS Act, 1985. While considering a bail petition
in a case involving commercial quantity, the Court has to keep in mind the
rigours enumerated under Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 which mandates
that Courts can grant bail to an accused only after hearing the public
prosecutor and after having satisfied itself of twin conditions which are
reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the
offence charged/alleged and that, he is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail. The stringent rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985
must be meticulously scrutinized against the backdrop of accused’s
fundamental right to a speedy trial. The right to life and personal liberty
cannot be rendered nugatory by unwarranted delays in the judicial process,
particularly where such delay(s) is neither attributable to the accused nor
justified at the end of the prosecution by cogent reasons. An individual
cannot be kept behind bars for an inordinate period of time by taking
refuge in rigours laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The
legislature in its wisdom, in order to ensure speedy and timely disposal of
the cases under the Act, has provided for the constitution of special Courts
under Section 36-A of the Act. However, this Court cannot turn Nelson’s
eye to the protracted delays and systematic inefficiency that frustrate this
legislative purpose. A Court of law is duty-bound to ensure that it does
not become complicit in violation of an individual’s fundamental rights,
notwithstanding anything contained in a statute. While dealing with bail
petition in a case governed by the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act,
1985, the Court must strike a judicious balance between the legislative
intent to curb the menace of drugs and the sacrosanct right of the accused
to a fair and expeditious trial. Prolonged incarceration, without justifiable
cause, risks transforming pre-trial detention into punitive imprisonment,
an outcome antithetical to the principle of justice and equity.







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.03 17:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

6
CRM CRM-M-54039 CRM CRM 54039 54039-2026 54039 2026 2026 2026


Ergo, the unequivocal inference is that where the trial has
failed to conclude within a reasonable time, resulting in prolonged
incarceration, it militates against the precious fundamental rights of life
and liberty granted under the law and, as such, conditional liberty
overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37 of the NDPS
Act, 1985 ought to be considered as per facts of a given case. In other
words, grant of bail in a case pertaining to commercial quantity, on the
ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37
of the NDPS Act, 1985. ”

In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37
of the NDPS Act stands diluted in light of the Article 21 of the Constitution
of India.
nd
6.4. Indubitably, the present petition is the 2 attempt by the
petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea was dismissed as
withdrawn on 20.07.2026. Keeping in view the entirety of the factual matrix
of the case in hand; especially, extended incarceration undergone by the
petitioner as also glacial pace of the trial; this Court is inclined to
affirmatively consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in
this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRA CRA-S-2332 CRA CRA 2332 2332- 2332
2023 2023 2023 2023 titled as Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana a Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana a Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana a nd another nd another nd another ; relevant
whereof reads as under:
“ 10. As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following
principles emerge:
I Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is
maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected
solely on the ground of maintainability thereof.
II. Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is
maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as
withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-prosecution
or earlier petition was dismissed on merits.
III For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to
succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently
required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing
of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. The
metaphoric expression of seeking second/successive bail plea(s)







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.03 17:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

7
CRM CRM-M-54039 CRM CRM 54039 54039-2026 54039 2026 2026 2026

ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without
substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances.
IV No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to
what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every
case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an
attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is
best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing
with such second/successive regular bail petition(s).
V In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular
bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to
be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being
second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court
having successfully countenanced/entertained such
second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly
decipherable from the said order passed. ”

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as undertrial is
not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed allowed allowed. Petitioner is allowed
ordered to be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, on
his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial
Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be
imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall
remain bound by the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or
documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before
the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on
bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the
trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the
Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station
and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior
permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the
trial.
(viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of
every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.03 17:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

8
CRM CRM-M-54039 CRM CRM 54039 54039-2026 54039 2026 2026 2026

Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in
commission of any offence after being released on bail.
In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any
offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present
FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is
mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail
which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon
merits thereof.

8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those
which may be imposed by concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed
hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the
State/complainant shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the
petitioner.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
11. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous
application, if any, shall also stand disposed off.








(SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL) SUMEET GOEL
JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE
November 03 November 03, 2026 November 03 November 03 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026
mahavir

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.03 17:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment