IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sukhdev ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 25.03.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 30.03.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 30.03.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full

4 Full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not

5 reasons thereof applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Amandeep Singh Gill, Advocate for Mr. Salinder Kumar Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. The instant one is the third 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 arising out of FIR No. 231 dated 03.08.2024, registered under Section 20B(ii)C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Narwana Sadar, District Jind. His first petition was dismissed by this Court on 28.04.2025 and second petition was dismissed as withdrawn on

09.10.2025.

2. The petitioner has been facing trial in the aforementioned case on the allegations that 02.08.2024, he was found in conscious possession of

1.018 kg. of Charas.

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. Even otherwise, the quantity of the same is marginally higher than the commercial quantity. He is in custody for a period of more than 01 year and 07 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 out of total 29 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far. Trial has also not progressed since the date of dismissal of his previous petitions. The extended period of his incarceration is a sufficient and new ground to seek concession of bail to him. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying him concession of bail in this case as he stands acquitted in five cases and is facing trial in only two more cases. 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. Learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, his criminal antecedents 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 first petition was filed by passing a detailed order. There is no new or substantial change in the circumstance entitling the petitioner to seek 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 03.08.2024. 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 reconside