CRM-M-39340-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 240 CRM-M-39340-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.09.2025 Dolat Singh @ Harry ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Raghav Soni, 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 seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 87 dated 31.05.2023 registered under Sections 21-C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Sirhali, District Tarn Taran. The first petition, bearing number CRM-M-12483-2024, was dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 31.01.2025. The operative part of the order dated 31.01.2025 reads as under: “6. The petitioner was apprehended by the police party on 31.05.2023 and recovery of 300 grams of heroin was effected from him. The said quantity of the contraband falls under the commercial quantity. Hence, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would certainly be attracted against the petitioner. As regards the arguments advanced by learned MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.09.24 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39340-2025 (O&M) -2- counsel for the petitioner with regard to non- compliance of the statutory provisions of the NDPS Act during investigation by the police party, 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 trial is going at a proper pace and there is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of trial. The petitioner was nabbed at the spot and aforesaid recovery of contraband was effected from him. Keeping in view the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, the quantity of recovered contraband, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case but without meaning to make any comment on the merits thereof, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be granted benefit of regular bail. Hence, the 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 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. 3. Per contra, it is argued by learned counsel for the respondent- 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 mere extended period of MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.09.24 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39340-2025 (O&M) -3- incarceration alone is not sufficient to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner. 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. 5. The previous petition filed by the petitioner for grant of regular bail had been dismissed vide order dated 31.01.2025. 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, 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 MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.09.24 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39340-2025 (O&M) -4- 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. There are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner. 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 case, 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. 24.09.2025 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.09.24 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document