CRM-M-11559-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 301 CRM-M-11559-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.07.2025 Kuldeep Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to him in FIR No. 16 dated 14.03.2024, registered under Sections 18 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Khui Khera, District Fazilka. The previous petition, bearing number CRM-M-31584- 2024, was dismissed by this Court on 31.08.2024. The operative part of the order reads as under : “6. As per the allegations, the petitioner was apprehended by the police party and recovery of 03 kgs. 500 grams of opium was effected from him, which obviously falls under the commercial quantity. Hence, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted against the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.18 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-11559-2025 (O&M) -2- petitioner. The arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to lacunas in investigation cannot be looked into at this stage as the same is to be decided by the trial Court after appreciating the entire evidence and material placed on record before it. So far as the alternative prayer made by the petitioner for granting him interim bail for a period of 90 days on medical grounds is concerned, a perusal of the medical status report reveals that his condition has been reported to be stable. More so, as per opinion of the specialist doctor of the Civil Hospital, Faridkot, no treatment for Hepatitis-B is required. Hence, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of interim bail too cannot be entertained. Therefore, keeping in view the gravity of allegations as levelled against the petitioner, the quantity of alleged contraband recovered from the petitioner, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that he does not deserve to be granted concession of regular or interim bail, at this stage. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.” 2. The only argument which has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner for grant of regular bail to the petitioner is that now challan has been presented but no witness has been examined so far. The petitioner is in custody since 14.03.2024. Hence, the extended period of incarceration has entitled the petitioner to be released on bail and therefore, it is urged by him that the petition deserves to be allowed. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.18 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-11559-2025 (O&M) -3- 3. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. It is argued by learned State counsel that the previous petition as filed by the petitioner was dismissed by passing a detailed order by this Court by taking into consideration the contentions raised by both sides. It is submitted that no new change in the circumstances has been pointed out. The mere extended period of incarceration alone is not sufficient to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against him as well as the quantity of the contraband recovered from him. Therefore, it is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully. 5. The previous petition as filed by the petitioner for grant of regular bail had been dismissed vide order dated 31.08.2024. It is well settled proposition of law that when successive bail applications come before the Court, the Court should be very cautious while considering the same. Successive bail applications can be entertained by the Court when some substantial change is established by the accused thereby making him entitled for grant of bail. Reference in this regard can be made to State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 Supreme Court, 2292, wherein it was observed so and it was further held that the Court should not pass an order of release of an accused on bail in successive bail application merely establishing some cosmetic change between time gap of two applications. There must be some drastic change during the period between two applications. Reference can also be made to Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another (2004) 7 SCC 528, MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.18 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-11559-2025 (O&M) -4- wherein it was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that where the offence alleged against an accused is grave, bail cannot be granted only on the ground of long incarceration. 6. After hearing the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that no substantial or drastic change from the date of dismissal of the previous petition as moved by the petitioner has been pointed out or made out from the pleas taken by the petitioner. Merely the extended/prolonged period of incarceration is not a ground to extend any such benefit as the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious. Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, in my considered opinion, it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail, especially in view of the fact that no drastic or material change in the circumstances has been made out. In view of the discussion as made above, I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Hence, the same is dismissed. 7. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 18.07.2025 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem Ansari Waseem Ansari Waseem Ansari Waseem Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.18 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document