JUDGMENT :

MANISHA BATRA, J. 

1. The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to him in case arising out of FIR No. 239 dated 12.07.2024, registered under Sections 15(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Civil Lines, Jind, District Jind. His previous petition was dismissed by this Court on 07.08.2025.

2. The petitioner has been facing trial in the aforementioned case on the allegations that he along with the co-accused Sinderpal Singh @ Sinder had procured the recovered contraband from Jharkhand, which was subsequently recovered from the house of said co-accused on 12.07.2024.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody for a period of 01 year, 08 months and 07 days. There is prolonged pendency of the trial in the present case, and there is no likelihood of its conclusion in the near future, particularly as only one out of total twenty one prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. Trial has also not progressed since the date of dismissal of his previous petition. The extended period of his incarceration is a sufficient and new ground to seek concession of bail to him. Co-accused Amarjeet Sharma, Sinderpal Singh @ Sinder and Manoranjan Yadav have already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court. On parity, he too deserves to be given the same benefit. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be granted benefit of regular bail.

4. Status report and custody certificate have been filed by respondent-State. It is argued by learned State counsel that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner as well as the fact that commercial quantity of the contraband was recovered in this case, he does not deserve to be released on bail. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

6. As per the allegations, co-accused Sinderpal Singh @ Sinder was found in conscious possession of commercial quantity of the contraband on 12.07.2024. The allegations against the petitioner are that he along with the said co-accused had procured the contraband from Jharkhand. The petitioner is in custody since 12.07.2024 and has spent a substantive period in custody. Obviously the trial is likely to take time to conclude. This factor, in the opinion of this Court, is a ground to move for bail afresh. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in a catena of cases that an accused cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period of time, and the bail application can be considered on its own merits even if it is filed repeatedly. It has also been held that every day spent in custody can provide a new cause of action for filing a bail application under certain circumstances. This principle is a part of the broader approach emphasizing that law prefers bail over jail, aiming to balance the rights of the accused with the requirements of the criminal justice system. Prolonged detention itself is a ground for reconsideration of bail since the settled principle of law is that detention prior to trial should not become punitive. 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. 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), 2