IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-66906-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 24.03.2026 Bhim Kumar Thukral ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Karandeep S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to him in case bearing FIR No. 86 dated 11.06.2024, registered under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Special Task Force, STF Wing, Ferozepur. His previous petition was dismissed on

15.07.2025.

2. The petitioner has been facing trial in the aforementioned case on the allegations that on 11.06.2024, he was found in conscious possession of 1430 intoxicating tablets of Clovidol 100 SR having salt of Tramadol Hydrochloride and 9,30,000/- tablets of Pregabalin.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case and a false recovery has been planted upon him. He is in custody for a period of more than 01 year and 09 months. 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 03 out of total 16 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Trial has also not progressed since the date of dismissal of his previous petition. He is not involved in any other case of similar nature. The extended period of his incarceration is a sufficient and new ground to seek concession of bail to him. His continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

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 from him, he does not deserve to be released on bail. His previous petition was dismissed by passing a detailed order. There is no new or substantial change in the circumstances entitling the petitioner to seek concession of 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. The petitioner is alleged to be found in conscious possession of commercial quantity of contraband. He is in custody since 11.06.2024 and has spent a period of more than 01 year and 09 months 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 also 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. Relianc