Sandeep Singh Alias Nikka v. State of Punjab

IN Sandeep S

State of P

Date of d Date of U

CORAM Present:

SUMEET

¶1Bharatiya petitioner offences p Nihal Sin

¶2before thi relevant p THE HIGH COURT OF PUN CHANDIG

Singh alias Nikka

V/s Punjab

decision: 06.07.2026 Uploading : 06.07.2026 M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate f Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG ***** T GOEL, J. (Oral) Present second petition has b a Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita see r in case bearing FIR No.92 da punishable under Sections 22/21 gh Wala, District Moga. The petitioner had earlier is Court which was dismissed a part of said order reads as under:- "2. Learned counsel for the seeks to withdraw the petition in h

¶3Ordered accordingly.

¶4Needless to say that, the p regular bail in the first instance b trial is procrastinate and folly can

NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH

CRM-M-32546-2026

....Petitioner

....Respondent SUMEET GOEL for the petitioner. G Punjab. been filed under Section 483 of king grant of regular bail to ated 27.05.2025, registered for of the NDPS Act at Police Stati applied for grant of regular b as withdrawn on 27.01.2026. T - petitioner, after arguing for someti hand, at this stage. petitioner shall be at liberty to apply before the learned Special Judge, in c nnot be attributable to the petitioner."

ion bail The ime, for case "

¶3PM, while patrolling flee after apprehend and Rama under Sec police off From the loose int Ramandee recovered articles w Photograp through th police all Psychotro criminal c concessio examiner custody o grams of E

¶4petitioner direct or i The gravamen of the FIR re e a police party headed by ASI g near Sem Bridge, Himmatpura, r dropping plastic bags upon ded and identified as Sandeep Si andeep Singh alias Arshoo. Af ction 50 of the NDPS Act as also ficer present, the bags allegedly possession of Sandeep Singh a toxicating tablets were recov ep Singh alias Arshoo, 20 gram d contraband was sealed, samp were taken into police posse phy/videography of the recov he E-Sakshiya application. On leged commission of offences opic Substances Act, 1985, and case against both accused person on of interim bail on 09.07.202 was not received. Thereafter, t on 15.09.2025 after the receipt o Etizolam salt, which falls under Learned counsel for the r has been falsely implicated int indirect connection with the alleg

eflects that on 27.05.2025 at 02 Pritam Singh was conducting a , two youths allegedly attempted noticing the police. They w ingh alias Nikka (petitioner here fter being informed of their rig o the consent to be searched by y dropped by them were search alias Nikka (petitioner herein), vered. From the possession ms of heroin was recovered. T ple seals were prepared and ession through recovery mem very proceedings was conduc the basis of these recoveries, s under the Narcotic Drugs a sent a rukka for registration o ns. The petitioner was extended 25 as the report of the chemi the petitioner was again sent to of the Chemical Examiner i.e. 4 the commercial quantity. petitioner has iterated that to the FIR in question and has ged recovery. Learned counsel h

:30 rea d to ere ein) ghts hed. of The mos. ted of a ical .32

further ite of Etizola further su reflective appear to further su scrupulou from inhe witness, a search/inv and the l counsel h the petitio counsel h challan h jurisdictio According

15.09.202 It has bee out of w conclusio therefore, the petitio anteceden the prose erated that the FIR in question p am salt which is a commerci ubmitted that the FIR is a shee of the arbitrary and unlawful ac have planted a false case upon t ubmitted that mandatory provis usly been complied with, and t erent defects. It has been furth as required under law, has been vestigation. Learned counsel ha liability thereof cannot be faste has further iterated that a bare re oner has been falsely implicated has further submitted that the inv has already been presented b on whereinafter charges have g to learned counsel, the petition 25 and has undergone incarcerati en further submitted that 16 pros which none has been examined n of trial is likely to take a c no useful purpose would be ser oner. Learned counsel has emph nts and there is no likelihood of cution evidence. Learned coun

pertains to recovery of 4.32 gra al quantity. Learned counsel h er abuse of process of law and ctions of the police authorities w the petitioner. Learned counsel h sions of the NDPS Act have n thus, the prosecution case suff her submitted that no independ n enjoined while carrying out as iterated that the trial is delay ened upon the petitioner. Learn ading of the FIR demonstrates t into the FIR in question. Learn vestigation has been completed a before the competent Court e been framed on 08.12.20 ner is stated to be in custody sin ion for a substantial period of tim secution witnesses have been cit d till date which reflects that considerable amount of time an rved for continued incarceration hasized that the petitioner has cle f his absconding or tampering w nsel has further submitted that

ams has d is who has not fers ent yed ned that ned of

¶25nce me. ted, nd, n of ean

earlier ba merits the account o aforesaid

¶5regular ba maintaina merits the the grant against th counsel, t substance learned co intoxicant thereby c Furthermo quantity a apply. Ac indicates or plante forward to being sta counsel s Court tod petitioner ail petition was dismissed as w ereof and there has been a ma of prolonged custody and delay submissions, the grant of petitio Learned State counsel has ail to the petitioner on account able as it is the second petition f ereof. On merits, learned State of bail to the petitioner by a he petitioner are serious in nat the petitioner is actively involv es involving commercial quanti ounsel, the petitioner was appreh t tablets was effected from th clearly establishing his conscio ore, the contraband recovered f and hence the rigours of Sectio ccording to learned counsel, th consciousness of guilt and the r d as alleged. Furthermore, no o indicate that the petitioner is e tutory bar under Section 37 o seeks to place on record custod day, which is taken on record r has suffered incarceration of 1

withdrawn with no adjudication terial change in circumstances y in the trial. On the strength on in hand is entreated for. vehemently opposed the grant of the present petition being no for grant of regular bail as also e counsel has vehemently oppos arguing that the allegations rais ture. According to learned St ved in the illicit trade of narco ity of contraband. According hended at the spot and recovery he polythene bag thrown by h ous possession of the contraban from the petitioner is commerc on 37 of the NDPS Act squar he conduct of the petitioner its recovery effected is not acciden othing tangible has been broug entitled to regular bail despite th of the NDPS Act. Learned St dy certificate dated 05.07.2026 d. As per the said custody, 1 months and 02 days. In view

on on of of on-on sed sed tate otic to y of him nd. cial rely self ntal ght ere tate in

the natur dismissal

¶6perused th

¶7this Cour PHHC:05 e of the allegations, learned S of the instant petition. I have heard learned couns he available record. It would be apposite to refe rt in Rafiq Khan vs. State o 54064; relevant whereof reads as

9.

The paramount iss is the liberty of an individua jurisprudence, liberty is a ch fundamental ascendency over a within the framework of C conspicuous, inter alia, in Artic shall be deprived of his person established by law. The Cr.P which permits curtailment of elements. Yet, liberty of an ind the rights of another individual everyday life without any imm rights of the collective of indivi cannot be neglected. Therefo considering the bail, the rights State (Society at large) ought t bail plea, the Court ought to ta

9.1 An analytical peru does not contain any prov otherwise of second/successive regular bail. Once there is no s a Court is not logically empow especially in case of codified Courts ought not to read a p been specifically provided for reading results into deprivation 362 of Cr.P.C. can, by no stre barring the filing of second/suc

State counsel has prayed for sel for the rival parties and ha er herein to a judgment passed of Haryana and another: 202 s under:- sue, in any plea for grant of regular b al. Indubitably, within our society a erished foundational principle and all other attributes of social order. E Constitution, this principle is m cle 21 of our Constitution that no per nal liberty except according to proced P.C., 1973 is one such procedural liberty of anti-social and anti-natio dividual, the accused, must not transgr l, the victim, in terms of right to dignif minent fear or threat. Additionally, iduals viz. the State/Society at large, a ore, while countenancing the facts s of the triad of accused, victim and to be entailed. Ergo, while considerin ake into account this core concept(s). usal of Cr.P.C. explicates that this stat vision relatable to maintainability e bail petitions, including one(s) seek statutory prohibition provided for in l wered to import into it such prohibitio and legislated law. It is trite law t provision in codified law which has by the legislature especially when s n of rights. The bar contained in Sect etch of legal imagination, be said to ccessive regular bail petition.

ave by 24: bail, has Even ade rson dure law onal ress fied also for ng a tute or king law, ons, that not uch tion

9.2 The Hon'ble Supr (supra) has held that rejectio forbid a Court from consideri Similar is the ratio decidend Court in Kalyan Chandra Sa inferred that the decision of essentially an interlocutory o judicata does not apply to its re

9.3 The issue that nex factors/parameters for conside petition(s).

9.4. The concordant le requisite for consideration of s material/substantial change i nature. Indubitably, the furthe petitioner-accused after reject bail, pace of trial, the witne prosecution case and changed be pertinent factor(s). It goes w illustrative in nature and canno

9.5 No rigid or univer to conclusively govern the determining, as to what w substantial change in circumst or different fact, may cause a s that each case has its own exercise of such judicial power Court, in accordance with the s

¶10As an epilogue t principles emerge: I Second/successive regular law & hence such petition ough of maintainability thereof. II. Such second/successive r whether earlier petition was d pressed/dismissed for non-p dismissed on merits. III For the second/successive petitioner/applicant shall be e

reme Court in case of Babu Singh c on of a bail petition does not, by its ing another one, later in point of ti di of the judgment of Hon'ble Supre arkar (supra). Ergo, it can be saf f a Court qua regular bail petition order and hence the postulation of ealm. xt craves attention is as to what are eration of second/successive regular b egal position is that the essential p second/successive regular petition is in circumstances and factors of a er period of incarceration suffered by tion/withdrawal of first/earlier plea esses turning hostile or not support d medical condition(s) of accused wo without saying that these factors are o ot by any means be said to be exhaust rsal criterion can possibly be delinea exercise of judicial discretion, would constitute as the above sta tances. Factual flexibility, one additio sea of difference. There is no gainsay distinct and unique facts and, hen r is best left to the judicial discretion o settled norms of our jurisprudence. to the above discussion, the follow r bail petition(s) filed is maintainable ht not to be rejected solely on the grou regular bail petition(s) is maintaina dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as prosecution or earlier petition w e regular bail petition(s) to succeed, essentially/pertinently required to sh

case self, ime. eme fely n is res bail pre-like for ting ould only ive. ated in ated onal ying nce, of a wing e in und able not was

¶8of regular settled po upon dem conspicuo counsel fo the first p petition, t the circum maintain second p circumsta trial has b substantial change in circumst or ostensible change would no seeking second/successive bai literal iterations of petition consequential change in circum IV No exhaustive guidelines would constitute substantial ch its own unique facts/circumsta but an utopian endeavour. Er wisdom discretion o second/successive regular bail V In case a Court chooses petition(s), cogent and lucid recorded for granting such second/successive petition(s). having successfully countenan petition(s) ought to be readily order passed." At the outset, it is evident tha r bail, the earlier one having be osition of law that subsequent ba monstration of a substantial ch ously absent in the present case. for the petitioner were available petition for regular bail was dism the petitioner has failed to bring mstances which would indicate his second petition for grant o petition for bail, it is sine-qu ances. This fact assumes more im been brought forth. Mere passage

tances and showing of a mere superfic ot suffice. The metaphoric expression il plea(s) ought not be abstracted i

(s) without substantial, effective a mstances. s can possibly be laid down as to w hange in circumstances as every case ance. Making such an attempt is noth rgo, this issue is best left to the judic of Court dealing with s petition(s). to grant second/successive regular b reasons are pertinently required to h plea despite such a plea be In other words, the cause for a Co nced/entertained such second/success y and clearly decipherable from the s at this is a second petition for gr een dismissed as withdrawn. It i ail petition can be entertained on hange in circumstances, which The contentions raised by learn to the petitioner at the time wh missed. Thereafter, in the pres forward fresh/substantial change e that the petitioner is entitled of regular bail. For maintaining ua-non to bring forth change mportance when no undue delay e of time or filing of challan etc.

cial n of into what has hing cial uch bail be eing ourt sive said rant is a nly h is ned hen ent e in to g a in y in , in

the facts o of bail. H withdrawn deems it a

¶9petitioner patrolling identified Ramandee peach col commerci recovered commerci contained Court is u believing offence or on bail. T FIR and absolve t Furthermo regular ba NDPS Ac the admis the Court of the present case, cannot be trea However, since the first regula n and there was no adjudicati appropriate to decide the instant Indubitably, serious allegatio r. As per the prosecution, th g near Sem Bridge, Himmatpu d themselves as Sandeep Singh a ep Singh alias Arshoo. From th loured tables weighing 4.32 gr ial quantity, has been recovere d from the co-accused Ramandee ial quantity of contraband an d in Section 37 of the NDPS Act unable to record satisfaction that that the petitioner is not prim r that he is not likely to commit The plea(s) of the petitioner tha no recovery has been effected the petitioner of the serious a ore, it is well settled that at the ail, particularly in cases involvi ct, this Court is not required to ssibility or reliability of evidenc must be satisfied that there are

ated as a sufficient ground for gr ar bail petition was dismissed ion on merits thereof, this Co one on merits thereof as well. ons have been levelled against e police, while conducting a ura, apprehended two youths w alias Nikka (petitioner herein) a he possession of the petitioner, rams of Etizolam salt, which is ed while 20 grams of heroin w ep Singh. The instant case involv nd hence the statutory embar squarely applies. At this stage, t t there exist reasonable grounds ma facie involved in the alleg any offence of similar nature wh at he was falsely implicated in d from him cannot, at this sta allegations contained in the FI e stage of consideration of plea ing commercial quantity under conduct a detailed examination ce on record. In order to grant b reasonable grounds to believe t

rant as ourt area who s a was ves rgo this for ged hile age, IR. for n of ail,

the accuse any offen allegation serious an

¶10been brou embargo to the ins passed by State of categorica of contrab NDPS Ac bail is to ground fo ed is not guilty of the offence a nce while on bail. From the m ns against the petitioner point to nd well-organized criminal netwo As regards the plea of pro ught forward before this Court to contained in Section 37 of the N stant case. It would be apposit y the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab vs. Sukhwinder Singh ally held that in cases involving band, the twin conditions as en ct are required to be mandatorily be granted. Mere prolonged in or grant of bail. The relevant wh "9. It is well-settled that in matt commercial quantity, the twin con NDPS Act are mandatory and en that the accused has undergon pendency of trial. The provision before enlarging an accused on conditions, first, that there exist r accused is not guilty of the offen likely to commit any offence w satisfaction is not a mere forma non-observance of which vitiates (supra), has held in no uncertain on the twin conditions under Se directory, and that an order satisfaction stands vitiated and ca reiterated in Lalrintluanga Sailo (

and that he is not likely to comm material available on record, oward his active participation in ork. longed incarceration, nothing h o form an opinion that the statuto NDPS Act would not be applicab te to refer herein to the judgm n SLP (Crl.)No.5020-2026 titled h @ Gora, wherein it has be g recovery of commercial quant nvisaged under Section 37 of y satisfied before the concession ncarceration by itself cannot be ereof reads thus: ters involving recovery of contraband nditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of ntail no relaxation merely on the grou ne prolonged incarceration during casts upon the Court a duty to reco bail, its satisfaction on two cumula reasonable grounds for believing that nce charged; and second, that he is while on bail. The recording of s ality but a mandatory pre-condition, s the grant of bail. This Court, in Kas n terms that the recording of satisfact ection 37 is mandatory and not mer granting bail without such recor annot be sustained. The same view sta (supra).

mit n a has ory ble ent d as een tity n of e a d in f the und ord, tive not uch shif tion rely ded

¶11period of as to affo Constituti of the Ho Singh @ G

¶12contained substantia that the p factual mi is hereby

¶13shall not h

¶10The impugned order, on satisfaction mandated under Sec from recording such satisfaction, that 'the rigours of Section 37 of mind the right to a speedy trial.' the settled law laid down by this C ground alone. The right to sp Constitution, is undoubtedly a pre matters governed by a specia particularly where the recovery i under Article 21 must be exerc 37 and cannot be pressed into s override it. The constitutional provision of law under Section 37 and not placed in opposition to e record its satisfaction on the twin Court's view, committed an error. Furthermore, the petitioner h about 11 months and 02 days and ford regular bail to the petition ion of India. Reliance in this reg on'ble Supreme Court titled as Gora passed in SLP (Crl.)-5020-Considering the gravity o d under Section 37 of the NDP al change in circumstances, this petitioner does not deserve the ilieu of the case in hand. The pet dismissed. Any observations made and/ have any effect on merits of the

its own showing, does not record ction 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. F the High Court has gone on to obse the NDPS Act can be diluted bearing Such an approach is plainly contrary Court and deserves to be set aside on eedy trial, rooted in Article 21 of ecious Constitutional right. That said al enactment such as the NDPS A is of commercial quantity, the said ri cised within the framework of Sect ervice solely on the ground of delay right under Article 21 and the spec 7, NDPS Act are to be read harmoniou each other. The High Court, by failing n conditions under Section 37, has in r." has suffered total incarceration fo d the said period is not sufficient ner in view of Article 21 of gard can be placed on the judgm State of Punjab vs. Sukhwind 2026. of allegations, the statutory b S Act as also the absence of a Court is of the considered opin concession of regular bail in tition is, thus, devoid of merits a /or submissions noted hereinabo e case and the investigating agen

Far erve g in y to this d, in Act, ight tion y to cial usly g to this or a t so ment der bar any ion ove

as also the being infl

14.

July 06, 2 Ajay

e trial Court shall proceed furthe luenced with this order. Pending application(s), if any

2026

er, in accordance with law, witho y, shall also stand disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE