IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 06.04.2026 HIMANSHU @ HEMANT @ HIMMAT ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Ms. Himani Anand, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana **** (cid:1)

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant one is the second petition filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.359 dated 11.05.2024 registered under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short “NDPS Act”) (Section 29 and 27(a) of the NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Shahbad, District Kurukshetra. His previous petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.11.2025.

2. As per the allegations, on 11.05.2024, on the basis of a secret information, the petitioner was apprehended by a police party and recovery of 04 Kgs. 600 Grams of opium was effected from his conscious possession. Upon interrogation, he disclosed that the recovered contraband was supplied to him by one Ashraf Shah, who was arrested on 17.05.2024, who further disclosed that he used to buy opium from co-accused and used to sell to one Leela Devi and other co-accused. Subsequently, the other co-accused were also arrested. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan was presented in the Court and the petitioner alongwith the co-accused is facing trial for commission of aforesaid offence. He had moved an application before the Trial Court for grant of regular bail but the same had been dismissed vide order dated 24.12.2024.

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 effected from him. The mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not properly complied with. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished him a new ground to move bail afresh. The petitioner is in custody since 17.05.2026. There are no chances of conclusion of the trial in the near future as no prosecution witness has been examined so far. He has clean antecedents. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. The co-accused Riyajudin and Leela Devi have already been granted benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the same benefit. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on regular bail.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Learned State counsel has advance notice of the petition. He has filed custody certificate and is ready to argue. He has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature. Commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered from his conscious possession. Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in this case. The present petition being a successive one is not maintainable. It is, therefore, urged that the petitioner does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail.

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

7. The petitioner alongwith the co-accused is alleged to have been indulged in smuggling of the contraband. The petitioner has been apprehended by the police and 04 Kgs. 600 Grams of opium was effected from his conscious possession. The allegations make out prima facie case for commission of the subject offences as against the petitioner. However, he is in custody since 17.05.2024. 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 p