JUDGMENT :

Manisha Batra, J. 

1. The instant one is the second petition as filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.0411 dated 22.09.2023, registered under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Goindwal Sahib, District Tarn Taran.

2. As per the allegations, the petitioner along with co-accused Nirmal Singh was found in conscious possession of 265 grams of heroin as on 22.09.2023. She is presently facing trial for commission of the aforementioned offences.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that after dismissal of her previous petitions, the trial has not progressed much and is likely to take considerable time to conclude. She is in custody for a period of more than 02 years and 06 months. No useful purpose would be served by her further detention. Each day spent by her in custody furnishes a new ground to extend benefit of bail to her. Co-accused Nirmal Singh, whose case is on similar footings, has been extended benefit of bail. On parity, she too deserves to be extended the same benefit. It is, thus, argued that she deserves to be extended the benefit of bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the present one being the second/successive petition for grant of regular bail is not maintainable as first petition as filed by the petitioner was dismissed by passing a detailed order. Rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in this case. It is, therefore, stressed the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

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

6. 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 continuous custody since 22.09.2023. There are no chances of conclusion of the trial in near future as only 07 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. 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.

7. Reliance can also be placed upon Santosh Pawar Vs. Stat