IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 12.02.2026 RAJPAL @ RAJPAL RATHI ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Kawalpreet Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana **** (cid:1)

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant one is the second petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. (which is pari materia of Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.73 dated 10.05.2024 registered under Sections 22(C) and 27 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS”) at Police Station Panipat SDR, District Panipat. The previous petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 16.01.2025. On the oral request of learned counsel for the petitioner Section 29 of NDPS is ordered to be added in the prayer clause as well as headnote of this petition.

2. As per the allegations, on 09.05.2024, on the basis of a secret information to the effect that the present petitioner was indulged in the business of sale of prohibited narcotic injections and had stored a huge quantity of the same in his residential house and the same could be recovered from his house, a raiding party was formed. Intimation was sent to the Police Station for registration of FIR. The Policy party reached at the informed place and recovered 500 injections of Buprenorphine, 1400 injections of Pentazocine Ozatcel and 1600 injections of Pentazocine Peplin. The petitioner failed to produce any permit or licence for possessing the same. The recovered injections were taken into custody by the Police. The petitioner 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. His previous petition was dismissed as withdrawn. However, there has not been much progress in the trial as none out of 17 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. He is in prolonged incarceration for a period of over 01 year and 08 months. His continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. He has clean antecedents. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner. Commercial quantity of Buprenorphine and Pentazocine injections were recovered from his conscious possession. The rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are attracted in this case. There are chances of petitioner’s committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, stressed that the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail.

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

6. The petitioner is in custody for over a period of 01 year and 08 months. It is well settled proposition of law that each day spent in custody by an accused furnished a ground to seek concession of bail to him. 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. It is well settled proposition of law that grant of bail on