CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----28998 28998 28998 28998 223 (1 223 (1 223 (1 223 (1stststst case) case) case) case) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Biram Ram Pooniya @ Veeru Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present: Present: Present: Present:- SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) of regular bail to the petitioner, in NCB 07.02.2025, registered under Sections 8, 22(c), 25, 29 & 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station Narcotics Control 2. complaint in question involves recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, details, whereof reads Sr. Sr. Sr. Sr. No. No. No. No. Date of Date of Date of Date of Seizure Seizure Seizure Seizure 1. 07.02.2025 28998 28998 28998 28998----2026 2026 2026 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----28998 28998 28998 28998----2026 2026 2026 2026 Biram Ram Pooniya @ Veeru versus Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: September 03 September 03 September 03 September 03, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: September September September September 05 05 05 05, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Ms. Nupur Sood, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sourabh Goel, Special Public Prosecutor, NCB with Ms. Anju Bansal, Advocate for the respondent ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present petition is the 2nd attempt Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) of regular bail to the petitioner, in NCB 07.02.2025, registered under Sections 8, 22(c), 25, 29 & 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station Narcotics Control Bureau, Amritsar Zonal Unit, Amritsar. As per case setup by the Narcotics Control Bureau, the complaint in question involves recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, details, whereof reads thus: Date of Date of Date of Date of Seizure Seizure Seizure Seizure Place of Seizure Place of Seizure Place of Seizure Place of Seizure 07.02.2025 At Peer Baba Dargaah, Thathiya Near Petrol 5,000 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride 1111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH 2026 2026 2026 2026 ….Petitioner Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau ….Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL for the petitioner. Sourabh Goel, Special Public Prosecutor, NCB with Ms. Anju Bansal, Advocate for the respondent – NCB. attempt filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in NCB Complaint Case No.04 dated 07.02.2025, registered under Sections 8, 22(c), 25, 29 & 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Bureau, Amritsar Zonal Unit, Amritsar. As per case setup by the Narcotics Control Bureau, the complaint in question involves recovery of commercial quantity of Drug Drug Drug Drug seized seized seized seized 5,000 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride 1111 Petitioner ….Respondent filed under Section 483 of the grant Case No.04 dated 07.02.2025, registered under Sections 8, 22(c), 25, 29 & 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at As per case setup by the Narcotics Control Bureau, the complaint in question involves recovery of commercial quantity of MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.05 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 2222 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----28998 28998 28998 28998----2026 2026 2026 2026 Pump, Jandiala Tarn Taran Road, Amritsar 2. 08/09.02.2025 J R Pharmaceuticals, Plot No. – 27, Sector-7, IIE, Sidcul, Haridwar. 16,860 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride 3. 09.02.2025 J R Pharmaceuticals, Plot No. – 27, Sector-7, IIE, Sidcul, Haridwar. 187 bottles of Barcadin (with codeine) 100ml and 140 bottles of CSP (with codeine) 100 ml. 4. 15.02.2025 J R Pharmaceuticals, Plot No. – 27, Sector-7, IIE, Sidcul, Haridwar. 80.720 Kgs of Tramadol Hydrochloride loose tablets 5. 17 to 28.02.2025 J R Pharmaceuticals, Plot No. – 27, Sector-7, IIE, Sidcul, Haridwar. 8,89,064 bottles of Codenie Phosphate Cough Syrup 100ml. 6. 28.03.2025 IKON Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd. Selaqui, Dehradun 240 tablets of Alprazolam and 1560 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride 7. 29.03.2025 Shop No. – F27, Transport Nagar, Sewla Kalan, Dehradun, Uttarkhand. 1,24,200 tabelts of Alproazolam 8. 18 to 20.04.2025 J R Pharmaceuticals, Plot No. – 27, Sector-7, IIE, Sidcul, Haridwar. 11,693 Bottles of Codeine Phosphate Cough Syrup and 2.982 Kgs of White Powder of Tramadol (Suspected). 9. 10 to 17.06.2025 IKON Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd., Selaqui, Dehradun 931 packets containing approx. 156,465 bottles of CBCS, approx. 178,9600 tablets of Psychotropic medicine, raw material of 304.94 Kg Tramadol Hcl, 44.47 Kg of Codenie Phosphate, 7.04 Kg Alprazolam and approx 643 Kg raw materials of other psychotropic & narcotics hold in process product 10. 12.08.2025 M/s Digital Vision, 176 Mouza Ogli, Nahan Road, Kala-amb, Sirmour, HP 1,368 capsules of Tramadol + 16 bottles of Codeine Phosphate Cough syrup 11. 09/ 10.11.2025 M/s Vellinton Healthcare, Vill- Rampur Jatan, Trilokpur Road, Kala- amb, Sirmour, HP 50,000 ampoules (2 ml each) 100 mg Tramadol, 5,000 Vials (10 ml each) Midazolam, 12.060 Kg of Tramadol HCL, 0.300 Kg of Midazolam Hydrochloride, 0.980 Kg of Lorazepam, 0.570 Kg of Diazepam, 1.050 Kg of Pentazocine powder 12. 11.10.2025 M/s Digital Vision, 176 Mouza Ogli, Nahan Road, Kala-amb, Sirmour, HP 13. 12.11.2025 to 16.11.2025 M/s Digital Vision, 176 Mouza Ogli, Nahan Road, Kala-amb, Sirmour, HP 12 lakhs tablets of NRx/ Psychotropic medicine and 150.62 Kg of NRx/ Psychotropic Raw materials, 23.674 Kg of Dispensed Psychotropic Raw materials, 165.840 Kg of Compressed/ coated Psychotropic Tablets, 271.10 Kg Psychotropic Granules Powder Substance and 573.100 Kg of Tramadol HCL Granules (mixture ready for filing in capsules) bulk 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 11.09.2025. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner was not named in the complaint dated 05.08.2025, however, he has been MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.05 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 3333 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----28998 28998 28998 28998----2026 2026 2026 2026 specifically named through a supplementary complaint dated 10.03.2026 filed subsequently at a belated stage. It has been further iterated that the petitioner is merely working as a helper in M/s Shivam Distributor. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner had no knowledge about the aforesaid firm allegedly being bogus/ fake. Learned counsel has further argued that the alleged transaction into the account of the petitioner was nothing but his salary and remuneration for working as a helper. Learned counsel has iterated that except the aforesaid, there is not even an iota of evidence against the petitioner to show his complicity in the offence in question. 3.1. Learned counsel has argued that upon culmination of investigation, challan stands presented and total 49 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which, none has been examined till date. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner has suffered substantial incarceration and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent – NCB has opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner by arguing that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. Learned State counsel has argued that the petitioner was actively associated with M/s Shivam Distributor, Nagaur, Rajasthan, and was also involved in diversion of Tramadol Tablets through this firm. Learned counsel for the respondent – NCB has further argued that huge narcotics contraband has been recovered, in the present case, and the same, being commercial in nature, falls under the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel has further submitted that petition in hand is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and are, thus, liable to be MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.05 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 4444 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----28998 28998 28998 28998----2026 2026 2026 2026 rejected on this score alone. In case, the petitioner is released on bail, there is all likelihood that the petitioner may abscond from the process of justice and also interfere with the prosecution evidence/ witnesses. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 02.09.2026, in Court today, which is taken on record. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record available on record. 6. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in Rafiq Khan vs. State of Haryana and another: 2024: PHHC:054064 Rafiq Khan vs. State of Haryana and another: 2024: PHHC:054064 Rafiq Khan vs. State of Haryana and another: 2024: PHHC:054064 Rafiq Khan vs. State of Haryana and another: 2024: PHHC:054064; relevant whereof reads as under: ““““9. The paramount issue, in any plea for grant of regular bail, is the liberty of an individual. Indubitably, within our society and jurisprudence, liberty is a cherished foundational principle and has fundamental ascendency over all other attributes of social order. Even within the framework of Constitution, this principle is made conspicuous, inter alia, in Article 21 of our Constitution that no person shall be deprived of his personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The Cr.P.C., 1973 is one such procedural law which permits curtailment of liberty of anti-social and anti-national elements. Yet, liberty of an individual, the accused, must not transgress the rights of another individual, the victim, in terms of right to dignified everyday life without any imminent fear or threat. Additionally, the rights of the collective of individuals viz. the State/Society at large, also cannot be neglected. Therefore, while countenancing the facts for considering the bail, the rights of the triad of accused, victim and the State (Society at large) ought to be entailed. Ergo, while considering a bail plea, the Court ought to take into account this core concept(s). 9.1 An analytical perusal of Cr.P.C. explicates that this statute does not contain any provision relatable to maintainability or otherwise of second/successive bail petitions, including one(s) seeking regular bail. Once there is no statutory prohibition provided for in law, a Court is not logically empowered to import into it such prohibitions, especially in case of codified and legislated law. It is trite law that Courts ought not to read a provision in codified law which has not been specifically provided for by the legislature especially when such reading results into deprivation of rights. The bar contained in Section 362 of Cr.P.C. can, by no stretch of legal imagination, be said to be barring the filing of second/successive regular bail petition. 9.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Babu Singh case (supra) has held that rejection of a bail petition does not, by itself, forbid a Court from considering another one, later in point of time. Similar is the ratio decidendi of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra). Ergo, it can be safely inferred that the decision of a Court MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.05 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 5555 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----28998 28998 28998 28998----2026 2026 2026 2026 qua regular bail petition is essentially an interlocutory order and hence the postulation of res judicata does not apply to its realm. 9.3 The issue that next craves attention is as to what are the factors/parameters for consideration of second/successive regular bail petition(s). 9.4 The concordant legal position is that the essential pre-requisite for consideration of second/successive regular petition is the material/substantial change in circumstances and factors of alike nature. Indubitably, the further period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner- accused after rejection/withdrawal of first/earlier plea for bail, pace of trial, the witnesses turning hostile or not supporting prosecution case and changed medical condition(s) of accused would be pertinent factor(s). It goes without saying that these factors are only illustrative in nature and cannot by any means be said to be exhaustive. 9.5 No rigid or universal criterion can possibly be delineated to conclusively govern the exercise of judicial discretion, in determining as to what would constitute as the above stated substantial change in circumstances. Factual flexibility, one additional or different fact, may cause a sea of difference. There is no gainsaying that each case has its own distinct and unique facts and, hence, exercise of such judicial power is best left to the judicial discretion of a Court, in accordance with the settled norms of our jurisprudence. 10. As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following principles emerge: I. Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof. II. Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-prosecution or earlier petition was dismissed on merits. III. For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. The metaphoric expression of seeking second/successive bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances. IV. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive regular bail petition(s). V. In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed.”””” 7. The present petition is the second attempt to secure regular bail by the petitioner. The first regular bail plea was dismissed on merits thereof, vide MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.05 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 6666 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----28998 28998 28998 28998----2026 2026 2026 2026 detailed judgment dated 11.02.2026 passed in CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----5435 5435 5435 54358888----202 202 202 2025555 and other connected cases. The submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner were very much available for consideration at the time of adjudication of the petitioner’s first petition seeking regular bail, which stood dismissed on merits, vide a detailed judgment dated 11.02.2026 ibid except that supplementary complaint dated 10.03.2026. The present petition is a successive attempt to secure the concession of regular bail on substantially the same set of facts and grounds. The only circumstance sought to be projected as a distinguishing feature is the further period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner. However, in the peculiar facts and attending circumstances of the present case, mere prolongation of custody, in the absence of any other supervening circumstance, cannot, by itself, be construed as a valid or sufficient ground to revisit the findings recorded while declining the earlier prayer for regular bail. Continued incarceration, without any material change in the factual or legal landscape, does not ipso facto entitle an accused to the concession of regular bail. It is trite that the maintainability of a second or successive petition for regular bail is predicated upon the existence of a substantial, material or supervening change in circumstances occurring after the rejection of the earlier petition. The change must be of such significance as to justify a fresh consideration of the matter and to persuade the Court to take a view different from the one previously adopted. In the case at hand, no such worthy fresh circumstance, either factual or legal, has been brought to the notice of this Court. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.05 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 7777 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----28998 28998 28998 28998----2026 2026 2026 2026 8. Keeping in view of the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially the absence of any fresh or supervening circumstance since the dismissal of the earlier petition for regular bail; this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. 9. In the aforesaid premise, the petition stands dismissed dismissed dismissed dismissed. 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 11. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. ((((SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)))) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE September 03 September 03 September 03 September 03, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.05 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment