IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (cid:1)

(123) CRM-M-72791-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 20.02.2026 BAMBER SINGH @ NIKKA @ BEMBER SINGH ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Karandeep Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab **** (cid:1)

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner is making prayer for granting him concession of bail in case arising out of FIR No.23 dated 18.03.2024 registered under Section 22-C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short “NDPS”) (Section 27 and 29 of NDPS added later on) at Police Station Balianwali, District Bathinda, on the allegations, that on 18.03.2024, intoxicating tablets of commercial quantity were recovered from the conscious possession of co- accused Pardeep Singh and as per the disclosure statement suffered by him (Pardeep Singh), those tablets had been supplied by the present petitioner. After being nominated as additional accused, he was arrested on 31.03.2024 and is facing trial now. Previous petitions as filed by the petitioner had been dismissed by this Court.

2. Prayer in this petition has been made prayer for extending benefit of bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration and it is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that now the co-accused Pardeep Singh has also been extended benefit of bail, as such on parity, the petitioner whose case is even at a better footing deserves to be extended the same benefit.

3. Status report and custody certificate have been filed. Learned State counsel has argued that there is no substantive change in the circumstances from the date of the dismissal of his previous petitions and hence the prayer made by the petitioner does not deserve to be accepted.

4. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties at considerable length.

5. The petitioner has been in custody since 31.03.2024 i.e. for a period of about one year and 11 months. The trial has not progressed much as still 12 prosecution witnesses are to be examined. It is, therefore, apparent that it will take considerable time to conclude. It is well settled proposition of law that an accused cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period of time and bail application can be considered on its own merit 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. 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 LiveLaw (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