IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Gurpreet Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 15.05.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 18.05.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 18.05.2026 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. Himmat Singh Deol, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

MANISHA BATRA, J.(Oral)

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 in case bearing FIR No. 2 dated 10.01.2021, registered under Section 21(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Behrampur, District Gurdaspur. His previous two petitions were dismissed as withdrawn.

2. The petitioner has been booked in the aforesaid FIR and facing trial therein on the allegations that on 10.01.2021, the petitioner along with co-

accused Ashish Kumar, Joginder Singh and Sandeep Singh, while coming in a car, was apprehended by a police party and recovery of 500 grams of heroin was effected from their conscious possession. All of them were formally arrested at the spot. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan was presented in the Court and presently, the petitioner along with the co-accused is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences.

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. He is in custody for a period of more than four years and four 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 only 11 out of 21 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The extended period of his incarceration is a sufficient and new ground to seek concession of bail to him. His continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. Co-accused Ashish Kumar, from whose bag alleged recovery was effected, has already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court. On parity, the petitioner too deserves to be given the same benefit. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Custody certificate of the petitioner been filed by respondent-State. It is argued by learned State counsel 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 in this case, he does not deserve to be released on 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 10.01.2021 and has spent a period of more than four years and four months in custody. 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 t