2025:HHC:33997 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1606 of 2025 Reserved on: 22.09.2025 Date of Decision: 08.10.2025. Pankaj Sharma ...Petitioner versus Narcotic Control Bureau, Chandigarh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : M/s Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary and Panku Chaudhary, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr Ashwani Pathak, Senior Advocate, with Mr Dev Raj, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in NCB Crime No. 16 of 2023, dated 04.07.2023, registered with NCB Chandigarh, under Sections 8, 21, 22, 23 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS”). 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was falsely implicated. The charge sheet was filed before the learned Trial 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:33997 Court on 19.12.2023, and charges were framed on 13.03.2025. The NCB has cited nineteen witnesses, and only one witness has been examined so far before the Court. The petitioner had earlier filed bail petitions, which were registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 2309 of 2023, Cr.MP(M) No. 1033 of 2024 and Cr.MP(M) No. 2428 of 2024, and were dismissed on 23.11.2023, 11.06.2024 and 13.12.2024, respectively. SLP (Criminal) No. 2305 of 2025 was also filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which was withdrawn on 15.04.2025. The petitioner found, after getting the charge sheet, that the NCB had made a false case of a manufactured drug called MDMA. The learned Magistrate had also not certified the correctness of the inventory. The discrepancies in the weight, colour and nature of the substance were never pleaded before the Court. The petitioner is innocent and did not commit any offence. The contraband was found in an unclaimed parcel which did not belong to the petitioner. The person who had sent the parcel was never apprehended by the NCB. The petitioner had no knowledge about the contents of the parcel sent by some other person in the petitioner’s name. The NCB did not conduct a fair investigation. The approval was not obtained on the prescribed form. The petitioner would abide by 3 2025:HHC:33997 the terms and conditions which the Court may impose, hence the petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report, making a preliminary submission regarding the lack of maintainability. The contents of the petition were denied on merits. It was asserted that the petitioner was found in possession of a commercial quantity of the contraband, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present case. The NCB checked the parcels after receiving secret information and obtained permission for controlled delivery in terms of Section 50A of the NDPS Act. The petitioner claimed two parcels. 3.3 grams of Cocaine/ methaqualone were recovered from the first parcel, and 60 grams of Cocaine/ methaqualone were recovered from the second parcel. Another registered parcel was intercepted, which contained 4.365 grams of Cocaine. The chemical analysis indicated positive tests for Cocaine Hydrochloride and Methylene Dioxy Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (MDMA) in three parcels. The articles were sent from the UK, Germany and France. An international cartel is involved in drug trafficking. The petitioner is the main link through whom the investigation is being carried out. The other 4 2025:HHC:33997 accomplices are yet to be arrested. The matter was listed for recording the statement of the prosecution witness on 24.09.2025. Rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act apply to the present case. Hence, it was prayed that the petition be dismissed. 4. I have heard Mr Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary and Mr Panku Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ashwani Pathak, learned Senior Advocate, with Mr Dev Raj, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Mr Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there are various discrepancies in the prosecution’s case. The colour and weight of the drugs changed from the time of the seizure till analysis, which made the prosecution’s case highly suspect. The petitioner did not know about the contents of the parcel, and he cannot be connected to the commission of the crime. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr Ashwani Pathak, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent, submitted that the petitioner had filed three bail petitions earlier before this Court, which were dismissed and one bail petition filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was 5 2025:HHC:33997 dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequent bail petitions only lie on the change of circumstances, and nothing has been pleaded in the petition regarding the change. Hence, he prayed that the present bail petition be dismissed. 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. It is undisputed that the petitioner had filed bail petitions, which were registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 2309 of 2023, Cr.MP(M) No. 1033 of 2024 and Cr.MP(M) No. 2428 of 2024, and were dismissed by this Court on 23.11.2023, 11.06.2024 and 13.12.2024, respectively. He also preferred SLP (Criminal) No. 2305 of 2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.04.2025. It was held in State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao (1989) Suppl. 2 SCC 605, that once a bail application has been dismissed, a subsequent bail application can only be considered if there is a change of circumstances. It was observed: “Once that application was rejected, there was no question of granting a similar prayer. That is virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being a change in the fact situation. And when we speak of change, we mean a substantial one, which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes, which are of 6 2025:HHC:33997 little or no consequence. 'Between the two orders, there was a gap of only two days, and it is nobody's case that during these two days, drastic changes had taken place necessitating the release of the respondent on bail. Judicial discipline, propriety and comity demanded that the impugned order should not have been passed, reversing all earlier orders, including the one rendered by Puranik, J., only a couple of days before, in the absence of any substantial change in the fact situation. In such cases, it is necessary to act with restraint and circumspection so that the process of the Court is not abused by a litigant and an impression does not gain ground that the litigant has either successfully avoided one judge or selected another to secure an order which had hitherto eluded him. 9. Similarly, it was held in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 528 that where an earlier bail application has been rejected, the Court has to consider the rejection of the earlier bail application and then consider why the subsequent bail application should be allowed. It was held: “11. In regard to cases where earlier bail applications have been rejected, there is a further onus on the court to consider the subsequent application for grant of bail by noticing the grounds on which earlier bail applications have been rejected and after such consideration, if the court is of the opinion that bail has to be granted then the said court will have to give specific reasons why in spite of such earlier rejection the subsequent bail application should be granted.” 10. A similar view was taken in State of T.N. v. S.A. Raja, (2005) 8 SCC 380, wherein it was observed: 7 2025:HHC:33997 9. When a learned Single Judge of the same court had denied bail to the respondent for certain reasons, and that order was unsuccessfully challenged before the appellate forum, without there being any major change of circumstances, another fresh application should not have been dealt with within a short span of time unless there were valid grounds giving rise to a tenable case for bail. Of course, the principles of res judicata are not applicable to bail applications, but the repeated filing of bail applications without there being any change of circumstances would lead to bad precedents. 11. This position was reiterated in Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 11 SCC 458, wherein it was observed: 30. Before concluding, we must note that though an accused has a right to make successive applications for the grant of bail, the court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected. In such cases, the court also has a duty to record the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications. 12. It was held in Ajay Rajaram Hinge v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1551, that a successive bail application can be filed if there is a material change in the circumstances, which means a change in the facts or the law. It was observed: 7. It needs to be noted that the right to file successive bail applications accrues to the applicant only on the existence of a material change in circumstances. The sine 8 2025:HHC:33997 qua non for filing subsequent bail applications is a material change in circumstances. A material change in circumstances settled by law is a change in the fact situation or law which requires the earlier view to be interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. However, a change in circumstance has no bearing on the salutary principle of judicial propriety that successive bail application needs to be decided by the same Judge on the merits, if available at the place of sitting. There needs to be clarity between the power of a judge to consider the application and a person's right based on a material change in circumstances. A material change in circumstance creates in a person accused of an offence the right to file a fresh bail application. But the power to decide such a subsequent application operates in a completely different sphere, unconnected with the facts of a case. Such power is based on the well-settled and judicially recognised principle that if successive bail applications on the same subject are permitted to be disposed of by different Judges, there would be conflicting orders, and the litigant would be pestering every Judge till he gets an order to his liking resulting in the credibility of the Court and the confidence of the other side being put in issue and there would be wastage of Court's time and that judicial discipline requires that such matter must be placed before the same Judge, if he is available, for orders. The satisfaction of material change in circumstances needs to be adjudicated by the same Judge who had earlier decided the application. Therefore, the same Judge needs to adjudicate whether there is a change in circumstance as claimed by the applicant, which entitles him to file a subsequent bail application.” 13. Therefore, the present bail petition can only be considered based on the change in the circumstances, and it is not permissible to review the order passed by the Court. 9 2025:HHC:33997 14. It was submitted that there are various discrepancies in the case property, which made the prosecution’s case doubtful. This plea was taken earlier and was rejected. The Court had held earlier that there was sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. 56.2 grams of MDMA come under commercial quantity; the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present case, and the petitioner was unable to satisfy the twin conditions laid down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 15. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1520: 2001 SCC OnLine SC 1070 that it is impermissible to review the earlier order of bail in the subsequent bail petition, and the Court can only consider the change in circumstances. It was observed on page 676: 8. It has further to be noted that the factum of the rejection of his earlier bail application bearing Miscellaneous Case No. 2052 of 2000 on 5-6-2000 has not been denied by the respondent. It is true that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances. But without the change in the circumstances, the second application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier judgment, which is not permissible under criminal law, as has been held by this Court in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa 10 2025:HHC:33997 [(2001) 1 SCC 169: 2001 SCC (Cri) 113] and various other judgments. 16. Therefore, it is impermissible to review the order passed by this Court. 17. The petitioner has failed to make out any change in the circumstances, and he is not entitled to bail. Consequently, the present petition fails and it is dismissed. 18. No other point was urged. 19. The observations made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the present petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. 20. The present petition stands disposed of, and so are the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 08th October, 2025 (Anurag)