231 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: October 14, 2025 Juned ….Petitioner versus State of Haryana ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Imtiyaz Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present second petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.105 dated 17.05.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21(C) and 61 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station Dhauj, District Faridabad.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving alleged recovery of 12 injections of Buprenorphine (2ml each) from the petitioner and 22 such injections from co-accused, namely, Jamshid alias Jamshed, total weighing 65.144 grams.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 17.05.2024. Learned counsel has further submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 01 year. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, the does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 25.08.2025 in the Court today, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 17.05.2024 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan has been presented on 14.08.2024. Total 20 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none has been examined till date. It is thus, indubitable that conclusion of the trial will take long time. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1. Indubitably, the present petition is the fifth attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 07.04.2025. However, keeping in view extended incarceration of the petitioner for a period of more than 06 months and no substantial progress in trial, this Court is inclined to affirmatively consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRA-S-2332-2023 titled as Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another; relevant whereof reads as under:

“10. As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following principles emerge:

I Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof.

II. Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-prosecution or earlier petition was dismissed on merits.

III For the second