IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

236 Date of decision: 30.01.2026 Balraj Singh alias Kaka ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State.

----

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The present one is the second petition as filed by the petitioner seeking concession of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.298 dated 31.12.2023, registered under Sections 21 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 (For short “Act, 1959”) (Sections 21(c), 23, 25 and 27-A of NDPS Act and Section 25 (6), (7), (8) of Act, 1959 added later on) at Police Station Islamabad, District Amritsar City. His first petition bearing CRM-M-39691-2024 has been dismissed vide order dated

10.03.2025.

2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that ever since the dismissal of his previous petition on 10.03.2025, the trial has not progressed much as no prosecution witness has been examined so far. The co-accused Sarabjit Singh whose case was on similar footing has been extended benefit of bail. On parity as well as on account of his prolonged incarceration, a new ground has been made out in his favour for seeking benefit of bail afresh. It is, thus, argued that he deserves to be released on bail.

3. Status report and custody certificate have been filed. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has argued that the previous petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by passing a detailed order. This is a successive petition. There is no drastic change in the circumstances. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

4. This Court has considered the rival submissions.

5. The similarly situated co-accused Sarabjit Singh has been extended benefit of bail. The trial will take time to conclude as no prosecution witness has been examined so far. The petitioner has remained in custody for a period of about 02 years and 23 days. 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. 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 SCC Online SC 110, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had extended benefit of bail to the accused w