IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 8^th April, 2026 Harjinder Singh @ Happy ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Paramjit Singh Bal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, 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. 166 dated 20.05.2024 registered under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station City Kharar, District SAS Nagar. His previous petition bearing CRM-M-10305-2025 had been dismissed vide order dated 12.08.2025.

2. As per the allegations, on 20.05.2024, the petitioner was apprehended on the basis of suspicion and recovery of 5220 intoxicating tablets containing Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride and Atropine Sulphate was effected from his conscious possession. He was formally arrested.

Investigation now stands concluded.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery has been planted upon him. He is in custody since long. There are no chances of conclusion of trial in near future. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. His antecedents are clean. His prolonged incarceration is militating against the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Each day spent by him in custody has given rise to a fresh cause of action for seeking bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Status report has been filed. Learned State counsel has argued that the previous petition of the petitioner has been dismissed by passing a detailed order and the instant one being successive petition is not maintainable. The 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. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

6. The petitioner is in custody since 20.05.2024. The allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of subject offence against him. However, only 04 out of 11 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Meaning thereby that there are no chances of conclusion of the trial in near future. 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 of the NDPS Act, given the imperative of Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. which is applicable to offence under the Act. It was also observed that jails are overcrowded and their living conditions are, more often than not, appalling. The danger of unjustified imprisonment is that inmates are more likely to be hardened rather than reformed. Reliance can also be placed upon Manmandal and Another v. State of West Bengal, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8656 of 2023 decided on 14.09.2023 and Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 Live Law (SC) 533, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had extended benefit of bail to the accused who had been incarcerated for a long period by observing that prolonged incarceration militated against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS A