CRM-M-30183 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 286 Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. Present:- MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. petitioner under Section seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing registered under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Badhni Kalan, District Moga CRM-M-5863 operative part of the order dated 05.11.2024 reads as under: 30183-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha Versus Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Ranwant Singh Sangha, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) The instant one is the second petition oner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 grant of regular bail in case bearing registered under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Badhni Kalan, District Moga. The first petition, bearing number 5863-2024, was dismissed by this Court operative part of the order dated 05.11.2024 reads as under: “6. As per the allegations, the petitioner was apprehended by a police party on 18.08.2023 and recovery of 30 intoxicant tablets was effected from him, out of which, tablets were found to be ‘Etizolam’ and 10 tablets were found to be ‘Tramadol Hydrochloride’. This Court has perused the FSL report, as per which, the tot the Etizolam tablets was found to be 4.10 grams. This quantity obviously falls under the commercial quantity as the threshold for the commercial quantity of Etizolam salt IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-30183-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.07.2025 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondent JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Ranwant Singh Sangha, Advocate Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. The instant one is the second petition, which has been filed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 79 dated 18.08.2023, registered under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station The first petition, bearing number , was dismissed by this Court on 05.11.2024. The operative part of the order dated 05.11.2024 reads as under: 6. As per the allegations, the petitioner was apprehended ice party on 18.08.2023 and recovery of 30 intoxicant tablets was effected from him, out of which, tablets were found to be ‘Etizolam’ and 10 tablets were found to be ‘Tramadol Hydrochloride’. This Court has perused the FSL report, as per which, the total weight of the Etizolam tablets was found to be 4.10 grams. This quantity obviously falls under the commercial quantity as the threshold for the commercial quantity of Etizolam salt -1- 2025 (O&M) 03.07.2025 ..Petitioner ...Respondents filed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 FIR No. 79 dated 18.08.2023, registered under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station The first petition, bearing number on 05.11.2024. The 6. As per the allegations, the petitioner was apprehended ice party on 18.08.2023 and recovery of 30 intoxicant tablets was effected from him, out of which, 20 tablets were found to be ‘Etizolam’ and 10 tablets were found to be ‘Tramadol Hydrochloride’. This Court has al weight of the Etizolam tablets was found to be 4.10 grams. This quantity obviously falls under the commercial quantity as the threshold for the commercial quantity of Etizolam salt MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.03 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30183 2. the petitioner for grant of regular bail to the petitioner is that 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. 30183-2025 (O&M) is only 2.5 grams. Hence, NDPS Act would certainly be attracted against the petitioner. As regards the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to non of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act and other lacunas in the investigation, the same have direct be on the merits of the case, which cannot be looked into at this stage while deciding a bail petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The apprehension expressed by learned State counsel that the petitioner, if extended benefit of bail, may abscond o cannot be stated to be unfounded at this stage. So far as the claim of the petitioner with regard to parity with the co-accused, who has been granted benefit of bail, is concerned, it can be stated that the case of the petitio not on similar footing with that of the co recovery was effected from the co petitioner was apprehended at the spot and aforesaid recovery of the contraband, which falls under commercial quantity, was effected from view the discussion as made above, the quantity of recovered contraband, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be granted benefit of regular bail, at this stage. Hence, the petition is dismissed.” The only argument which has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner for grant of regular bail to the petitioner is that 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. is only 2.5 grams. Hence, the rigors of Section 37 of the certainly be attracted against the petitioner. As regards the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to non-compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act and other lacunas in the investigation, the same have direct bearing on the merits of the case, which cannot be looked into at this stage while deciding a bail petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The apprehension expressed by learned State counsel that the petitioner, if extended benefit of bail, may abscond or indulge in similar offences cannot be stated to be unfounded at this stage. So far as the claim of the petitioner with regard to parity with the accused, who has been granted benefit of bail, is concerned, it can be stated that the case of the petitioner is not on similar footing with that of the co-accused as no recovery was effected from the co-accused, whereas the petitioner was apprehended at the spot and aforesaid recovery of the contraband, which falls under commercial quantity, was effected from him. Therefore, keeping in view the discussion as made above, the quantity of recovered contraband, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion tioner does not deserve to be granted benefit of regular bail, at this stage. Hence, the petition is The only argument which has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner for grant of regular bail to the petitioner is that 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. -2- the rigors of Section 37 of the certainly be attracted against the petitioner. As regards the arguments advanced by learned compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act and other aring on the merits of the case, which cannot be looked into at this stage while deciding a bail petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The apprehension expressed by learned State counsel that the petitioner, if extended r indulge in similar offences cannot be stated to be unfounded at this stage. So far as the claim of the petitioner with regard to parity with the accused, who has been granted benefit of bail, is ner is accused as no accused, whereas the petitioner was apprehended at the spot and aforesaid recovery of the contraband, which falls under commercial him. Therefore, keeping in view the discussion as made above, the quantity of recovered contraband, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion tioner does not deserve to be granted benefit of regular bail, at this stage. Hence, the petition is The only argument which has been raised by learned counsel for period of incarceration has entitled the petitioner to be released on bail and therefore, MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.03 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30183 3. State that the previous petition 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 incarceration alone is not sufficient to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner. Allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature. Therefore, it is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 4. and have gone through the record carefully. 5. bail had been dismissed vide order dated filed without there being any substantial change in circumstances 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 substantial change is established by the accused thereby making him entitled for grant of bail. Reference in this regard can be made to Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 Supreme Court, 2292 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 between two applications. Reference can also be made to 30183-2025 (O&M) Per contra, it is argued by learned counsel for the respondent that the previous petition 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 incarceration alone is not sufficient to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner. Allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature. Therefore, it is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. I have heard learned counsel for the and have gone through the record carefully. The previous petition filed by the petitioner for grant of regular bail had been dismissed vide order dated 05.11.2024 without there being any substantial change in circumstances 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 Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 Supreme , 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 , it is argued by learned counsel for the respondent that the previous petition 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. Allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature. Therefore, it is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully. The previous petition filed by the petitioner for grant of regular 05.11.2024. The instant one has been without there being any substantial change in circumstances. 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. 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 , 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 some drastic change during the period between two applications. Reference can also be made to Kalyan Chandra -3- , it is argued by learned counsel for the respondent- that the previous petition 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 mere extended period of incarceration alone is not sufficient to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner. Allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature. Therefore, it is at considerable length The previous petition filed by the petitioner for grant of regular . The instant one has been . 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. can be entertained by the Court when some substantial change is established by the accused thereby making him entitled State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 Supreme , 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 some drastic change during the period Kalyan Chandra MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.03 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30183 Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another (2004) 7 SCC 528, 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. 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 or examination of some material witnesses is not a ground is also going on at a good pace and there is nothing to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the same. Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, in my considered opinion, it is not a 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, but without meaning to make any comment on the merits of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Hence, the same is dismissed. 7. 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. 03.07.2025 Waseem Ansari Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 30183-2025 (O&M) Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another (2004) 7 SCC 528, wherein it was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that where the offence d against an accused is grave, bail cannot be granted only on the ground of long incarceration. After hearing the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that no substantial or drastic change e 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 or examination of some material witnesses is not a ground to extend any such benefit. The trial is also going on at a good pace and there is nothing to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the same. Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, in my considered opinion, it is not a 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, but without meaning to make any comment on the merits of the , I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Hence, the same is dismissed. 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. 03.07.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another (2004) 7 SCC 528, wherein it was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that where the offence d against an accused is grave, bail cannot be granted only on the ground After hearing the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that no substantial or drastic change e 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 or examination of to extend any such benefit. The trial is also going on at a good pace and there is nothing to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the same. 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, but without meaning to make any comment on the merits of the , I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be 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. (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No -4- Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another (2004) 7 SCC 528, wherein it was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that where the offence d against an accused is grave, bail cannot be granted only on the ground After hearing the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that no substantial or drastic change e 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 or examination of to extend any such benefit. The trial is also going on at a good pace and there is nothing to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the same. Keeping in view the nature and 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, but without meaning to make any comment on the merits of the , I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be 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 MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.03 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document