( 2025:HHC:20181 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 520 of 2025 Reserved on: 20.06.2025 Decided on: 27.06.2025 Ram Singh ....Petitioner Versus Narcotics Control Bureau …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, Advocate. For the respondent/NCB: Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dev Raj, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sushil Kukreja, Judge The instant bail application has been moved by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for releasing him on bail, in NCB Crime No. 74/2022, dated 20.10.2022, under Sections 20 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short “NDPS Act”), registered with NCB, Sub Zone Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that a team of NCB received a secret information that two persons, namely, Som Nath and Ram Singh (petitioner herein) were involved in 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:20181 ) trafficking of charas. On the basis of said information, the NCB Mandi team reached at Bajaura bypass on 20.10.2022 and at about 6:30 am, a white coloured Maruti 800 bearing registration No. PB-07G-2400 came from Bhuntar side, which was stopped by the NCB team and the persons sitting in the said vehicle, were asked to disclose their identity. One person disclosed his name as Som Nath and other as Ram Singh (petitioner herein). After ascertaining their identities, the Investigating Officer tried to associate the persons walking on the road, as witnesses, in the proceedings, but they refused. thereafter, the Investigating Officer called Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Hat Bajaura namely Barkat Ali and Ward Member Arun Sharma and associated them as independent witnesses in the proceedings. After that a local mechanic, namely Jogu Ram, was called for opening the parts of the vehicle in the presence of both the accused persons as well as the independent witnesses. During search, 13 packets wrapped with brown coloured tape were recovered from the front mudguard, upper side of tyres, which were containing charas. On weighment, the recovered charas/cannabis was found to be 2 ( 2025:HHC:20181 ) 4.424 Kgs. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities and both the accused persons were arrested. 3. The bail application has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 20.10.2022 and the trial is not going to be completed in near future, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail, as no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period. He further contended that there is inordinate delay in conclusion of trial, which infringes upon the right of speedy trial of the petitioner, as such, he is entitled to be released on bail on the ground that his right of speedy trial has been violated. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General opposed the bail application on the ground that keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. He further contended that the present bail application filed by the petitioner is the successive one, which is liable to be dismissed as there is no change in circumstances after the dismissal of the earlier bail application. 3 ( 2025:HHC:20181 ) 5. Pertinently, the present is the third successive bail application filed by the petitioner. Earlier, the petitioner had preferred bail application being Cr. MP (M) No. 2896 of 2023 before this Court, seeking regular bail, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 26.12.2023, as this Court was of the opinion that quantity of the charas/cannabis recovered from the petitioner was 4.424 kgs, which is a commercial quantity and he has failed to satisfy the conditions, as provided under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred another bail application being Cr. MP (M) No. 2400 of 2024, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 24.12.2024, as this Court was of the opinion that after the dismissal of the earlier bail application, there is no substantial change in the circumstances, which would entitle the petitioner for releasing him on bail. 6. It is a well settled principle of law that when the successive bail application comes before the Court, the Court would be very conscious while considering the same. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2292, that successive bail application can be entertained by the Court when substantial 4 ( 2025:HHC:20181 ) change is established by the accused, which would entitle him for getting bail in successive bail application. The Court should not pass the order of releasing the accused on bail in successive bail application merely establishing some cosmetic change between time gap of two applications. There should be drastic change during the period between two applications, which would entitle the accused for bail. 7. In State of M.P vs. Kajad (2001) 7 SCC 673 Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically considered that when there are no changed circumstances, the successive bail application is nothing but review of the earlier application which cannot be maintainable. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: “8. It has further to be noted that the factum of the rejection of his earlier bail application bearing Misc. 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 ((2001) 1 SCC 169) and various other judgments.” 8. In State of Tamilnadu vs. S.A.Raja (2005) 8 SCC 380 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: 5 ( 2025:HHC:20181 ) “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 the bail applications without there being any change of circumstances would lead to bad precedents.” 9. In the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar,vs Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7SCC 528 Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: “20. "Before concluding, we must note though an accused has a right to make successive applications for 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 what are the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications………." 10. In Virupakshappa Gouda & another vs. State of Karnataka and another (2017) 5 Supreme Court Cases 406 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: “12. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Judge, we find that he has been swayed by the factum that when a charge-sheet is filed it amounts to change of circumstance. Needless to Say, filing of the charge-sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution. On the contrary, filing of the charge-sheet establishes that after due investigation the investigating agency, having found materials, has placed the charge- sheet for trial of the accused persons. As is further demonstrable, the learned trial Judge has remained absolutely oblivious of the fact that the appellants 6 ( 2025:HHC:20181 ) had moved the special leave petition before this Court for grant of bail and the same was not entertained. Be it noted, the second bail application was filed before the Principal Sessions Judge after filing of the charge-sheet which was challenged in the High Court and that had travelled to this Court. These facts, unfortunately, have not been taken note of by the learned trial Judge……….” 11. A perusal of the aforementioned judgments indicates that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances, but the change of circumstances must be substantial one, which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence. Without the change in the circumstances, the subsequent bail application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier rejection order, which is not permissible under criminal law. While entertaining such subsequent bail applications, the Court has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail application was rejected and what are the fresh grounds which persuade it warranting the evaluation and consideration of the bail application afresh and to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application. There must be change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. 7 ( 2025:HHC:20181 ) 12. Now reverting back to the facts of the case on hand. The perusal of the material available on record would reveal that out of total eight witnesses cited by the prosecution, six witnesses have already been examined and now the case is listed for recording the statements of remaining two prosecution witnesses on 20.08.2025. After going through the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that at this stage, the petitioner has failed to make out a case to release him on bail. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail as he is behind the bars for the last more than two years and seven months is no ground to grant him bail, as the quantity of charas/cannabis involved in the present case is 4.424 Kgs, which is commercial quantity. Moreover, the trial is in progress and as observed earlier, out of total eight witnesses cited by the prosecution, six witnesses have already been examined and the case is now listed for the recording the statements of remaining two witnesses of the prosecution on 20.08.2025. 13. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that after the dismissal of 8 ( 2025:HHC:20181 ) the earlier bail applications, there is no substantial change in the circumstances which would entitle the petitioner to file the present application. Therefore, in absence of any changed circumstances, the present successive application for bail cannot be entertained. Hence, for the reasons mentioned above, the bail application filed by the petitioner is dismissed. However, since the petitioner is behind the bars since 20.10.2022 and only two prosecution witnesses are to be examined, the learned trial Court is directed to prepone the case and record the statements of remaining two prosecution witnesses in the month of July, 2025 and also conclude the trial on or before 31.08.2025. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner informed this Court that despite various opportunities the respondent/NCB has failed to produce the witnesses in question on one pretext or the other. Hence, in such view of the matter, it is made clear that the remaining two witnesses shall be brought by the respondent/NCB at its own responsibility on the date to be fixed by the learned trial Court. It is also made clear that in case the witnesses of the respondent/NCB do not appear on the date to be fixed by the learned trial Court for recording their statements, 9 ( 2025:HHC:20181 ) then the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act shall be initiated against them. 15. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 30.06.2025. 16. Let a copy of this order be immediately sent to the learned trial Court through e-mail. 17. Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court will not be influenced by any observations made therein. ( Sushil Kukreja ) June 27, 2025 Judge (raman) 10