Soma Singh vs State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(251) CRM-M-63257-2026
Date of Decision: 12.11.2026
Date of uploading: 12.11.2026
Soma Singh --Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana --Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL.
Present:- Mr. Rajesh Tushar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, A.A.G., Haryana.
*
SUMEET GOEL.J (Oral)
1. Present 2nd petition has been filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in case bearing FIR No.62 dated 01.03.2025, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 15-61-85 of NDPS Act (Later on added
Sections 15-C, 25, 27-A, 29 and 31 of NDPS Act), at Police Station Sadar
Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.
2. The gravamen of the FIR in question pertains to the recovery of
205.325 Kg. of Poppy Husk.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
in custody since 01.03.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been
complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is delayed and
the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel
LUCKY
2026.11.12 17:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

CRM-M-63257-2026 -2-
has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more
than 1 year. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by
arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature
and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned
State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is restricted 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 10.11.2026 in Court, 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 01.03.2025, whereinafter,
investigation was carried out and the challan was presented on 07.08.2025.
Total 23 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but 3 have been examined
till date. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues
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. As per custody certificate dated 10.11.2026 filed by the learned
State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period
of 01 year, 08 months and 09 days.
6.2. This Court in a judgment titled as Kulwinder versus State of
Punjab passed in CRM-M-64074-2024 (2025:PHHC:002695); after
relying upon the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
LUCKY
2026.11.12 17:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

CRM-M-63257-2026 -3-
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 the time of the
commission of the offence till the criminal proceedings
LUCKY
2026.11.12 17:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

CRM-M-63257-2026 -4-
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
LUCKY
2026.11.12 17:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

CRM-M-63257-2026 -5-
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.
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
LUCKY
2026.11.12 17:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

CRM-M-63257-2026 -6-
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.
6.3 Indubitably, the present petition is the 2nd attempt by the
petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner
was dismissed as not pressed on 09.02.2026 by this Court in CRM-M-5216-
2026. Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand,
especially extended incarceration of the petitioner and no substantial
progress in trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant
plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a
judgment of this Court passed in CRA-S-2332-2023 titled as Rafiq Khan
versus State of Haryana and 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) ought not be abstracted
LUCKY
2026.11.12 17:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

CRM-M-63257-2026 -7-
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 an
undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail 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.
LUCKY
2026.11.12 17:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh

CRM-M-63257-2026 -8-
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the
trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone 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.
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 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 stands disposed of.
(SUMEET GOEL)
12.11.2026 JUDGE
lucky
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
LUCKY
2026.11.12 17:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgement
High Court chandigarh