IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 2^nd April, 2026 Sunny Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. R.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-

The instant one is the second petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 197 dated 10.06.2023 registered under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Islamabd, District Amritsar, on the allegations that on 10.06.2023, he was found in conscious possession of 10800 intoxicating tablets of Alprazolam. The previous petition as filed by the petitioner had been dismissed vide order dated 10.07.2025.

2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. After dismissal of his previous petition, there has not been much progress in the trial as only 05 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. There are no chances of conclusion of trial in near future.

He has undergone a period of custody of more than 02 years and 07 months. He has been extended benefit of bail in another case registered against him and in the second case, has undergone the period of sentence. His continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be released on bail.

3. Status report and custody certificate have been filed by respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that previous petition of the petitioner has been dismissed by passing a detailed order and hence, this one being successive petition is not maintainable. It is also argued that rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are attracted in this case. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail.

Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

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

5. The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have been found in conscious possession of commercial quantity of the contraband. He has been in custody since 10.06.2023. Though the previous petition filed by the petitioner had been dismissed on 10.07.2025, however, the trial has not progressed much as only 05 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and therefore, obviously the same will take considerable 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. Trial is likely to take time to conclude as most of the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. 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