CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 151 Sandeep Singh alias Nikka State of Punjab Date of decision: Date of Uploading : 0 CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. Bharatiya Nagrik petitioner in case bearing FIR No. offences punishable under Section Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga. 2. before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn on relevant part of said order -32546-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sandeep Singh alias Nikka V/s State of Punjab Date of decision: 06.07.2026 Date of Uploading : 06.07.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG Punjab. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) Present second petition has been filed Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita seeking petitioner in case bearing FIR No.92 dated offences punishable under Sections 22/21 Singh Wala, District Moga. The petitioner had earlier applied for grant of regular bail before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn on relevant part of said order reads as under:- “2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for sometime, seeks to withdraw the petition in hand, at this stage. 3. Ordered accordingly. 4. Needless to say that, the petitioner shall be at liberty to apply for regular bail in the first instance b trial is procrastinate and folly cannot be attributable to the petitioner. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-32546-2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG Punjab. Present second petition has been filed under Section 483 of the seeking grant of regular bail to the dated 27.05.2025, registered for the 22/21 of the NDPS Act at Police Station The petitioner had earlier applied for grant of regular bail before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn on 27.01.2026. The - Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for sometime, seeks to withdraw the petition in hand, at this stage. Needless to say that, the petitioner shall be at liberty to apply for regular bail in the first instance before the learned Special Judge, in case trial is procrastinate and folly cannot be attributable to the petitioner.” 483 of the grant of regular bail to the , registered for the at Police Station The petitioner had earlier applied for grant of regular bail . The Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for sometime, Needless to say that, the petitioner shall be at liberty to apply for efore the learned Special Judge, in case ” AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.07 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 3. PM, while a police party headed by ASI Pritam Singh was conducting area patrolling near Sem Bridge, Himmatpura, two youths allegedly attempted to flee after dropping plastic bags upon noticing the police. They were apprehended and identified as Sandeep Singh alias Nikka and Ramandeep Singh alias Arshoo. under Section 50 of the NDPS Act police officer present, the bags allegedly dropped by them were searched. From the possession of Sandeep Singh alias Nikka loose intoxicating tablets were recovered. From the possession of Ramandeep Singh alias Arshoo, 20 grams of heroin was recovered. The recovered contraband was sealed, sample seals were prepared and the articles were taken into police possession through reco Photography/videography of the recovery proceedings was conducted through the E police alleged commission of offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, an criminal case against both accused persons. concession of interim bail on 09.07.2025 as the report of the chemical examiner was not received. Thereafter, the petitioner was again sent t custody on 15.09.2025 grams of Etizolam salt 4. petitioner has been falsely implicated into t direct or indirect connection with the alleged recovery. Learned counsel has -32546-2026 The gravamen of the FIR reflects that PM, while a police party headed by ASI Pritam Singh was conducting area atrolling near Sem Bridge, Himmatpura, two youths allegedly attempted to flee after dropping plastic bags upon noticing the police. They were apprehended and identified as Sandeep Singh alias Nikka and Ramandeep Singh alias Arshoo. Afte under Section 50 of the NDPS Act as also the consent police officer present, the bags allegedly dropped by them were searched. From the possession of Sandeep Singh alias Nikka oose intoxicating tablets were recovered. From the possession of Ramandeep Singh alias Arshoo, 20 grams of heroin was recovered. The recovered contraband was sealed, sample seals were prepared and the articles were taken into police possession through reco Photography/videography of the recovery proceedings was conducted through the E-Sakshiya application. On the basis of these recoveries, the police alleged commission of offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and sent a rukka for registration of a criminal case against both accused persons. concession of interim bail on 09.07.2025 as the report of the chemical examiner was not received. Thereafter, the petitioner was again sent t custody on 15.09.2025 after the receipt of the Chemical Examiner i.e. 4.32 grams of Etizolam salt, which falls under the commercial quantity. Learned counsel for the petitioner has petitioner has been falsely implicated into t direct or indirect connection with the alleged recovery. Learned counsel has 2 The gravamen of the FIR reflects that on 27.05.2025 at 02:30 PM, while a police party headed by ASI Pritam Singh was conducting area atrolling near Sem Bridge, Himmatpura, two youths allegedly attempted to flee after dropping plastic bags upon noticing the police. They were apprehended and identified as Sandeep Singh alias Nikka (petitioner herein) After being informed of their rights as also the consent to be searched by the police officer present, the bags allegedly dropped by them were searched. From the possession of Sandeep Singh alias Nikka (petitioner herein), 30 oose intoxicating tablets were recovered. From the possession of Ramandeep Singh alias Arshoo, 20 grams of heroin was recovered. The recovered contraband was sealed, sample seals were prepared and the articles were taken into police possession through recovery memos. Photography/videography of the recovery proceedings was conducted On the basis of these recoveries, the police alleged commission of offences under the Narcotic Drugs and d sent a rukka for registration of a criminal case against both accused persons. The petitioner was extended the concession of interim bail on 09.07.2025 as the report of the chemical examiner was not received. Thereafter, the petitioner was again sent to the receipt of the Chemical Examiner i.e. 4.32 which falls under the commercial quantity. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question and has no direct or indirect connection with the alleged recovery. Learned counsel has 02:30 PM, while a police party headed by ASI Pritam Singh was conducting area atrolling near Sem Bridge, Himmatpura, two youths allegedly attempted to flee after dropping plastic bags upon noticing the police. They were (petitioner herein) r being informed of their rights to be searched by the police officer present, the bags allegedly dropped by them were searched. , 30 oose intoxicating tablets were recovered. From the possession of Ramandeep Singh alias Arshoo, 20 grams of heroin was recovered. The recovered contraband was sealed, sample seals were prepared and the very memos. Photography/videography of the recovery proceedings was conducted On the basis of these recoveries, the police alleged commission of offences under the Narcotic Drugs and d sent a rukka for registration of a The petitioner was extended the concession of interim bail on 09.07.2025 as the report of the chemical o the receipt of the Chemical Examiner i.e. 4.32 that the and has no direct or indirect connection with the alleged recovery. Learned counsel has AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.07 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- further iterated that the FIR in question pertains to recovery of 4.32 grams of Etizolam salt which is a commercial quantity. further submitted reflective of the arbitrary and unlawful actions of the police authorities who appear to have planted a false case upon the petitioner. further submitted that scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. witness, as required under law, has been enjoined while carrying search/investigation. and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. counsel has further iterated that a bare reading of the FIR demonstrates that the petitioner has counsel has further submitted that the challan has already been presented before the jurisdiction According to learned counsel, the 15.09.2025 It has been further submitted that 16 out of which conclusion of trial is likely to take a considerable amount of time and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served the petitioner antecedents the prosecution evidence. -32546-2026 further iterated that the FIR in question pertains to recovery of 4.32 grams of Etizolam salt which is a commercial quantity. further submitted that the FIR is a sheer abuse of process of law and is reflective of the arbitrary and unlawful actions of the police authorities who appear to have planted a false case upon the petitioner. further submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. It has been further submitted that no independent witness, as required under law, has been enjoined while carrying search/investigation. Learned counsel has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. counsel has further iterated that a bare reading of the FIR demonstrates that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. counsel has further submitted that the investigation challan has already been presented before the jurisdiction whereinafter charges have been framed on 0 According to learned counsel, the petitioner 15.09.2025 and has undergone incarceration for a substantial period of time It has been further submitted that 16 prosecution witnesses out of which none has been examined till date conclusion of trial is likely to take a considerable amount of time and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served the petitioner. Learned counsel has emphasized th antecedents and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Learned counsel 3 further iterated that the FIR in question pertains to recovery of 4.32 grams of Etizolam salt which is a commercial quantity. Learned counsel has sheer abuse of process of law and is reflective of the arbitrary and unlawful actions of the police authorities who appear to have planted a false case upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers It has been further submitted that no independent witness, as required under law, has been enjoined while carrying out the Learned counsel has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that a bare reading of the FIR demonstrates that been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned investigation has been completed and challan has already been presented before the competent Court whereinafter charges have been framed on 08.12.2025 petitioner is stated to be in custody since and has undergone incarceration for a substantial period of time prosecution witnesses have been cited none has been examined till date which reflects that conclusion of trial is likely to take a considerable amount of time and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served for continued incarceration of Learned counsel has emphasized that the petitioner has clean and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with Learned counsel has further submitted that the further iterated that the FIR in question pertains to recovery of 4.32 grams has sheer abuse of process of law and is reflective of the arbitrary and unlawful actions of the police authorities who Learned counsel has mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers It has been further submitted that no independent out the Learned counsel has iterated that the trial is delayed Learned counsel has further iterated that a bare reading of the FIR demonstrates that Learned and of 8.12.2025. in custody since and has undergone incarceration for a substantial period of time. cited, the conclusion of trial is likely to take a considerable amount of time and, for continued incarceration of clean and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with that the AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.07 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- earlier bail merits thereof account of prolonged custody and delay in the trial. aforesaid submissions, the grant of petition in hand is entreated for. 5. regular bail to the petitioner on account of the present petition being non maintainable as it is the second petition for grant of regular bail as also on merits thereof. On merits, l the grant of against the petitioner are serious in nature counsel, the petitioner is actively involved in the illicit trade of narcotic substances involving commercial quantity o learned counsel, the petitioner was apprehended at the spot and recovery of intoxicant tablets was effected from the polythene bag thrown by him thereby clearly establishing his conscious possession of the contraband. Furthermo quantity and hence the apply. According to learned counsel, the conduct of the petitioner itself indicates consciousness of guilt and the recovery or planted as alleged. Furthermore, nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate that the petitioner is entitled to regular being statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated Court today petitioner has suffered incarceration of -32546-2026 earlier bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn with no adjudication on thereof and there has been a material change in circumstances on account of prolonged custody and delay in the trial. aforesaid submissions, the grant of petition in hand is entreated for. Learned State counsel has vehemently oppose regular bail to the petitioner on account of the present petition being non maintainable as it is the second petition for grant of regular bail as also on merits thereof. On merits, learned State counsel the grant of bail to the petitioner by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature counsel, the petitioner is actively involved in the illicit trade of narcotic substances involving commercial quantity o learned counsel, the petitioner was apprehended at the spot and recovery of intoxicant tablets was effected from the polythene bag thrown by him thereby clearly establishing his conscious possession of the contraband. Furthermore, the contraband recovered from the petitioner is commercial quantity and hence the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act squarely According to learned counsel, the conduct of the petitioner itself indicates consciousness of guilt and the recovery or planted as alleged. Furthermore, nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate that the petitioner is entitled to regular being statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. seeks to place on record custody certificate dated today, which is taken on record. petitioner has suffered incarceration of 11 months and 02 days 4 as withdrawn with no adjudication on and there has been a material change in circumstances on account of prolonged custody and delay in the trial. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of petition in hand is entreated for. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner on account of the present petition being non maintainable as it is the second petition for grant of regular bail as also on earned State counsel has vehemently opposed to the petitioner by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. According to learned State counsel, the petitioner is actively involved in the illicit trade of narcotic substances involving commercial quantity of contraband. According to learned counsel, the petitioner was apprehended at the spot and recovery of intoxicant tablets was effected from the polythene bag thrown by him thereby clearly establishing his conscious possession of the contraband. re, the contraband recovered from the petitioner is commercial rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act squarely According to learned counsel, the conduct of the petitioner itself indicates consciousness of guilt and the recovery effected is not accidental or planted as alleged. Furthermore, nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate that the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite there being statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Learned State seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 05.07.2026 , which is taken on record. As per the said custody, the 11 months and 02 days. In view of as withdrawn with no adjudication on and there has been a material change in circumstances on On the strength of d the grant of regular bail to the petitioner on account of the present petition being non- maintainable as it is the second petition for grant of regular bail as also on has vehemently opposed to the petitioner by arguing that the allegations raised According to learned State counsel, the petitioner is actively involved in the illicit trade of narcotic f contraband. According to learned counsel, the petitioner was apprehended at the spot and recovery of intoxicant tablets was effected from the polythene bag thrown by him thereby clearly establishing his conscious possession of the contraband. re, the contraband recovered from the petitioner is commercial rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act squarely According to learned counsel, the conduct of the petitioner itself effected is not accidental or planted as alleged. Furthermore, nothing tangible has been brought despite there Learned State 05.07.2026 in As per the said custody, the In view of AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.07 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- the nature of the allegations, learned State counsel dismissal of the instant petition. 6. perused the available record. 7. this Court in PHHC:054064 -32546-2026 the nature of the allegations, learned State counsel dismissal of the instant petition. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the available record. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgmen this Court in Rafiq Khan vs. State of Haryana and another: 2024: PHHC:054064; relevant whereof reads as under: 9. The paramount issue, in any plea for grant of regular bail, is the liberty of an individual. Indubitably, within our society and jurisprudence, liberty is a cherished foundational principle and has fundamental ascendency over all other attributes of social order. Even within the framework of Constitution, this principle is made conspicuous, inter alia, in Article 21 of our Constitu shall be deprived of his personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The Cr.P.C., 1973 is one such procedural law which permits curtailment of liberty of anti elements. Yet, liberty of an individual, the accused, must not transgress the rights of another individual, the victim, in terms of right to dignified everyday life without any imminent fear or threat. Additionally, the rights of the collective of individuals viz. the State/Society a cannot be neglected. Therefore, while countenancing the facts for considering the bail, the rights of the triad of accused, victim and the State (Society at large) ought to be entailed. Ergo, while considering a bail plea, the Court ought to take into account this core concept(s). 9.1 An analytical perusal of Cr.P.C. explicates that this statute does not contain any provision relatable to maintainability or otherwise of second/successive bail petitions, including one(s) seeking regular bail. Once there is no statutory prohibition provided for in law, a Court is not logically empowered to import into it such prohibitions, especially in case of codified and legislated law. It is trite law that Courts ought not to read a provision in codified la been specifically provided for by the legislature especially when such reading results into deprivation of rights. The bar contained in Section 362 of Cr.P.C. can, by no stretch of legal imagination, be said to be barring the filing of second/successive regular bail petition. 5 the nature of the allegations, learned State counsel has prayed for the I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by Rafiq Khan vs. State of Haryana and another: 2024: ; relevant whereof reads as under:- The paramount issue, in any plea for grant of regular bail, is the liberty of an individual. Indubitably, within our society and jurisprudence, liberty is a cherished foundational principle and has fundamental ascendency over all other attributes of social order. Even within the framework of Constitution, this principle is made conspicuous, inter alia, in Article 21 of our Constitution that no person shall be deprived of his personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The Cr.P.C., 1973 is one such procedural law which permits curtailment of liberty of anti-social and anti-national individual, the accused, must not transgress the rights of another individual, the victim, in terms of right to dignified everyday life without any imminent fear or threat. Additionally, the rights of the collective of individuals viz. the State/Society at large, also cannot be neglected. Therefore, while countenancing the facts for considering the bail, the rights of the triad of accused, victim and the State (Society at large) ought to be entailed. Ergo, while considering a take into account this core concept(s). An analytical perusal of Cr.P.C. explicates that this statute does not contain any provision relatable to maintainability or otherwise of second/successive bail petitions, including one(s) seeking Once there is no statutory prohibition provided for in law, a Court is not logically empowered to import into it such prohibitions, especially in case of codified and legislated law. It is trite law that Courts ought not to read a provision in codified law which has not been specifically provided for by the legislature especially when such reading results into deprivation of rights. The bar contained in Section 362 of Cr.P.C. can, by no stretch of legal imagination, be said to be nd/successive regular bail petition. has prayed for the I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have t passed by Rafiq Khan vs. State of Haryana and another: 2024: The paramount issue, in any plea for grant of regular bail, is the liberty of an individual. Indubitably, within our society and jurisprudence, liberty is a cherished foundational principle and has fundamental ascendency over all other attributes of social order. Even within the framework of Constitution, this principle is made tion that no person shall be deprived of his personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The Cr.P.C., 1973 is one such procedural law national individual, the accused, must not transgress the rights of another individual, the victim, in terms of right to dignified everyday life without any imminent fear or threat. Additionally, the t large, also cannot be neglected. Therefore, while countenancing the facts for considering the bail, the rights of the triad of accused, victim and the State (Society at large) ought to be entailed. Ergo, while considering a An analytical perusal of Cr.P.C. explicates that this statute does not contain any provision relatable to maintainability or otherwise of second/successive bail petitions, including one(s) seeking Once there is no statutory prohibition provided for in law, a Court is not logically empowered to import into it such prohibitions, especially in case of codified and legislated law. It is trite law that w which has not been specifically provided for by the legislature especially when such reading results into deprivation of rights. The bar contained in Section 362 of Cr.P.C. can, by no stretch of legal imagination, be said to be AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.07 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -32546-2026 9.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of (supra) has held that rejection of a bail petition does not, by itself, forbid a Court from considering another one, later in point of time. Similar is the ratio decidendi of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar inferred that the decision of a Court qua regular bail petition is essentially an interlocutory order and hence judicata does not apply to its realm. 9.3 The issue that next craves attention is as to what are the factors/parameters for consideration of second/successive regular bail petition(s). 9.4. The concordant legal position is that the essential pre requisite for consideration of second/successive regular petition is the material/substantial change in circumstances and factors of alike nature. Indubitably, the further period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner-accused after rejection/withdrawal of first/earl bail, pace of trial, the witnesses turning hostile or not supporting prosecution case and changed medical condition(s) of accused would be pertinent factor(s). It goes without saying that these factors are only illustrative in nature and canno 9.5 No rigid or universal criterion can possibly be delineated to conclusively govern the exercise of judicial discretion, in determining, as to what would constitute as the above stated substantial change in circumstances. Factual flexibility, one additional or different fact, may cause a sea of difference. There is no gainsaying that each case has its own distinct and unique facts and, hence, exercise of such judicial power is best left to the judicial discretio Court, in accordance with the settled norms of our jurisprudence. 10. As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following principles emerge: I Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought no of maintainability thereof. II. Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-prosecution or earlier pet dismissed on merits. III For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show 6 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Babu Singh case (supra) has held that rejection of a bail petition does not, by itself, forbid a Court from considering another one, later in point of time. io decidendi of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Chandra Sarkar (supra). Ergo, it can be safely inferred that the decision of a Court qua regular bail petition is essentially an interlocutory order and hence the postulation of res does not apply to its realm. The issue that next craves attention is as to what are the factors/parameters for consideration of second/successive regular bail The concordant legal position is that the essential pre nsideration of second/successive regular petition is the material/substantial change in circumstances and factors of alike nature. Indubitably, the further period of incarceration suffered by the accused after rejection/withdrawal of first/earlier plea for bail, pace of trial, the witnesses turning hostile or not supporting prosecution case and changed medical condition(s) of accused would be pertinent factor(s). It goes without saying that these factors are only illustrative in nature and cannot by any means be said to be exhaustive. No rigid or universal criterion can possibly be delineated to conclusively govern the exercise of judicial discretion, in determining, as to what would constitute as the above stated cumstances. Factual flexibility, one additional or different fact, may cause a sea of difference. There is no gainsaying that each case has its own distinct and unique facts and, hence, exercise of such judicial power is best left to the judicial discretion of a Court, in accordance with the settled norms of our jurisprudence. As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not prosecution or earlier petition was For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show case (supra) has held that rejection of a bail petition does not, by itself, forbid a Court from considering another one, later in point of time. io decidendi of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme (supra). Ergo, it can be safely inferred that the decision of a Court qua regular bail petition is the postulation of res The issue that next craves attention is as to what are the factors/parameters for consideration of second/successive regular bail The concordant legal position is that the essential pre- nsideration of second/successive regular petition is the material/substantial change in circumstances and factors of alike nature. Indubitably, the further period of incarceration suffered by the ier plea for bail, pace of trial, the witnesses turning hostile or not supporting prosecution case and changed medical condition(s) of accused would be pertinent factor(s). It goes without saying that these factors are only t by any means be said to be exhaustive. No rigid or universal criterion can possibly be delineated to conclusively govern the exercise of judicial discretion, in determining, as to what would constitute as the above stated cumstances. Factual flexibility, one additional or different fact, may cause a sea of difference. There is no gainsaying that each case has its own distinct and unique facts and, hence, n of a As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in t to be rejected solely on the ground Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not ition was For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.07 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 8. of regular bail settled position of law that subsequent bail petition can be entertained only upon demonstration of a conspicuously absent in the present case. counsel for the petitioner were the first petition for regular bail was dismissed. Thereafter, in the present petition, the petitioner has failed to bring forward fresh/substantial change in the circumstances which would indicate that the pe maintain his second petition for grant of regular bail. For maintaining a second petition for bail, it is circumstances. This fact assumes more importance when no undue delay in trial has been -32546-2026 substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. The metaphoric expression of seeking second/successive bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances. IV No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best l wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive regular bail petition(s). V In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from th order passed.” At the outset, it is evident that this is a of regular bail, the earlier one having been dismissed settled position of law that subsequent bail petition can be entertained only upon demonstration of a substantial change in circumstances conspicuously absent in the present case. counsel for the petitioner were available to the petitioner at the time when the first petition for regular bail was dismissed. Thereafter, in the present petition, the petitioner has failed to bring forward fresh/substantial change in the circumstances which would indicate that the pe maintain his second petition for grant of regular bail. For maintaining a second petition for bail, it is sine-qua circumstances. This fact assumes more importance when no undue delay in trial has been brought forth. Mere passage of time or filing of challan 7 substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial le change would not suffice. The metaphoric expression of seeking second/successive bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive regular bail petition(s). In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be orded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said At the outset, it is evident that this is a second petition for grant , the earlier one having been dismissed as withdrawn. It is a settled position of law that subsequent bail petition can be entertained only substantial change in circumstances, which is The contentions raised by learned available to the petitioner at the time when the first petition for regular bail was dismissed. Thereafter, in the present petition, the petitioner has failed to bring forward fresh/substantial change in the circumstances which would indicate that the petitioner is entitled to maintain his second petition for grant of regular bail. For maintaining a qua-non to bring forth change in circumstances. This fact assumes more importance when no undue delay in Mere passage of time or filing of challan etc., in substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial le change would not suffice. The metaphoric expression of seeking second/successive bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without substantial, effective and No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an attempt is nothing eft to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be orded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive e said second petition for grant It is a settled position of law that subsequent bail petition can be entertained only , which is The contentions raised by learned available to the petitioner at the time when the first petition for regular bail was dismissed. Thereafter, in the present petition, the petitioner has failed to bring forward fresh/substantial change in titioner is entitled to maintain his second petition for grant of regular bail. For maintaining a to bring forth change in circumstances. This fact assumes more importance when no undue delay in , in AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.07 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- the facts of the present case, cannot be treated as a sufficient ground for grant of bail. However, since the first regular bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn and there was no adjudica deems it appropriate to decide the instant one on merits thereof as well. 9. petitioner. As per the prosecution, the patrolling near Sem Bridge, Himmatpura, identified Ramandeep Singh alias Arshoo. peach coloured tables weighing 4.32 grams of Etizo commercial quantity, has been recovered while 20 grams of heroin was recovered from the co commercial quantity of contraband contained in Section 37 of Court is unable to record satisfaction that there exist reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not offence or that he is not likely to commit any offenc on bail. The plea(s) of the petitioner that he was falsely implicated in the FIR and no recovery has been effected from him absolve the petitioner of the serious allegations Furthermor regular bail, particularly in cases involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, this Court is not required to conduct a detailed examination of the admissibility or reliability of e the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that -32546-2026 the facts of the present case, cannot be treated as a sufficient ground for grant However, since the first regular bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn and there was no adjudication on merits thereof, this Court deems it appropriate to decide the instant one on merits thereof as well. Indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. As per the prosecution, the ng near Sem Bridge, Himmatpura, identified themselves as Sandeep Singh alias Nikka Ramandeep Singh alias Arshoo. From the possession of the petitioner, 30 peach coloured tables weighing 4.32 grams of Etizo commercial quantity, has been recovered while 20 grams of heroin was recovered from the co-accused Ramandeep Singh. commercial quantity of contraband and contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act squarely applies. At this stage, this Court is unable to record satisfaction that there exist reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not prima facie offence or that he is not likely to commit any offenc The plea(s) of the petitioner that he was falsely implicated in the FIR and no recovery has been effected from him absolve the petitioner of the serious allegations Furthermore, it is well settled that at the stage of consideration of plea for regular bail, particularly in cases involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, this Court is not required to conduct a detailed examination of the admissibility or reliability of evidence on record. In order to grant bail, the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that 8 the facts of the present case, cannot be treated as a sufficient ground for grant However, since the first regular bail petition was dismissed as tion on merits thereof, this Court deems it appropriate to decide the instant one on merits thereof as well. Indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. As per the prosecution, the police, while conducting area ng near Sem Bridge, Himmatpura, apprehended two youths who as Sandeep Singh alias Nikka (petitioner herein) and From the possession of the petitioner, 30 peach coloured tables weighing 4.32 grams of Etizolam salt, which is a commercial quantity, has been recovered while 20 grams of heroin was accused Ramandeep Singh. The instant case involves and hence the statutory embargo the NDPS Act squarely applies. At this stage, this Court is unable to record satisfaction that there exist reasonable grounds for prima facie involved in the alleged offence or that he is not likely to commit any offence of similar nature while The plea(s) of the petitioner that he was falsely implicated in the FIR and no recovery has been effected from him cannot, at this stage, absolve the petitioner of the serious allegations contained in the FIR. e, it is well settled that at the stage of consideration of plea for regular bail, particularly in cases involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, this Court is not required to conduct a detailed examination of vidence on record. In order to grant bail, the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the facts of the present case, cannot be treated as a sufficient ground for grant However, since the first regular bail petition was dismissed as tion on merits thereof, this Court Indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the conducting area who and From the possession of the petitioner, 30 lam salt, which is a commercial quantity, has been recovered while 20 grams of heroin was case involves the statutory embargo the NDPS Act squarely applies. At this stage, this Court is unable to record satisfaction that there exist reasonable grounds for the alleged while The plea(s) of the petitioner that he was falsely implicated in the cannot, at this stage, in the FIR. e, it is well settled that at the stage of consideration of plea for regular bail, particularly in cases involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, this Court is not required to conduct a detailed examination of vidence on record. In order to grant bail, the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.07 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- the accused is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. From the material available on allegations against the petitioner point toward his active participation in a serious and well 10. been brought forward before this Court to form an opinion that the embargo contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act to the instant case. passed by the Hon’bl State of Punjab vs. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, categorically held that of contraband, the twin conditions as envisaged under Section 37 NDPS Act are required to be mandatorily satisfied before the concession of bail is to be granted. Mere prolonged ground for -32546-2026 the accused is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. From the material available on allegations against the petitioner point toward his active participation in a serious and well-organized criminal network. As regards the plea of prolonged incarceration, been brought forward before this Court to form an opinion that the embargo contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act to the instant case. It would be apposite to refer herein to the passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, categorically held that in cases involving recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, the twin conditions as envisaged under Section 37 NDPS Act are required to be mandatorily satisfied before the concession of bail is to be granted. Mere prolonged incarceration by itself cannot be a for grant of bail. The relevant whereof reads thus: “9. It is well-settled that in matter commercial quantity, the twin conditions under NDPS Act are mandatory and entail no relaxation merely on the ground that the accused has undergone prolonged incarceration during the pendency of trial. The provision casts upon the Court a duty to record, before enlarging an accused on bail, its satisfaction on two cumulative conditions, first, that there exist reasonable grounds for believing accused is not guilty of the offence charged; and second, that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The recording of such satisfaction is not a mere formality but a mandatory pre non-observance of which vitiates th (supra), has held in no uncertain terms that the recording of satisfaction on the twin conditions under Section 37 directory, and that an order granting bail without such recorded satisfaction stands vitiated and cannot be sustained. The same view stands reiterated in Lalrintluanga Sailo (supra). 9 the accused is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. From the material available on record, the allegations against the petitioner point toward his active participation in a organized criminal network. As regards the plea of prolonged incarceration, nothing has been brought forward before this Court to form an opinion that the statutory embargo contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be applicable t would be apposite to refer herein to the judgment e Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.)No.5020-2026 titled as State of Punjab vs. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, wherein it has been in cases involving recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, the twin conditions as envisaged under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are required to be mandatorily satisfied before the concession of incarceration by itself cannot be a . The relevant whereof reads thus: settled that in matters involving recovery of contraband in commercial quantity, the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act are mandatory and entail no relaxation merely on the ground ndergone prolonged incarceration during the pendency of trial. The provision casts upon the Court a duty to record, before enlarging an accused on bail, its satisfaction on two cumulative conditions, first, that there exist reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged; and second, that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The recording of such satisfaction is not a mere formality but a mandatory pre-condition, the observance of which vitiates the grant of bail. This Court, in Kashif (supra), has held in no uncertain terms that the recording of satisfaction Section 37 is mandatory and not merely order granting bail without such recorded satisfaction stands vitiated and cannot be sustained. The same view stands reiterated in Lalrintluanga Sailo (supra). the accused is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit record, the allegations against the petitioner point toward his active participation in a nothing has statutory would not be applicable judgment titled as wherein it has been in cases involving recovery of commercial quantity of the NDPS Act are required to be mandatorily satisfied before the concession of incarceration by itself cannot be a s involving recovery of contraband in of the NDPS Act are mandatory and entail no relaxation merely on the ground ndergone prolonged incarceration during the pendency of trial. The provision casts upon the Court a duty to record, before enlarging an accused on bail, its satisfaction on two cumulative that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged; and second, that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The recording of such condition, the e grant of bail. This Court, in Kashif (supra), has held in no uncertain terms that the recording of satisfaction is mandatory and not merely order granting bail without such recorded satisfaction stands vitiated and cannot be sustained. The same view stands AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.07 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 11. period of about 11 months and 02 days and the said period is not sufficient so as to afford regular bail to the petitioner in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reliance in t of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Singh @ Gora 12. contained under Section 37 of the N substantial change in circumstances, that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail factual milieu is hereby dismissed. 13. shall not have any effect on merits of the case and -32546-2026 10. The impugned order, on its own showing, does not record the satisfaction mandated under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) from recording such satisfaction, the High Court has gone on to observe that 'the rigours of Section 37 of the NDP mind the right to a speedy trial.' Such an approach is plainly contrary to the settled law laid down by this Court and deserves to be set aside on this ground alone. The right to speedy trial, rooted in Constitution, is undoubtedly a precious Constitutional right. That said, in matters governed by a special particularly where the recovery is of commercial quantity, the said right under Article 21 must be exercised within the framework of 37 and cannot be pressed into service solely on the ground of delay to override it. The constitutional right under provision of law under Section 37 and not placed in opposition to each other. The High Court, by failing to record its satisfaction on the twin conditions under Court’s view, committed an error.” Furthermore, the petitioner has suffered total incarceration for a period of about 11 months and 02 days and the said period is not sufficient so as to afford regular bail to the petitioner in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Singh @ Gora passed in SLP (Crl.)-5020-2026. Considering the gravity of allegations, the contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act substantial change in circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail milieu of the case in hand. The petition is, thus, devoid of is hereby dismissed. Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on merits of the case and 10 The impugned order, on its own showing, does not record the Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. Far from recording such satisfaction, the High Court has gone on to observe of the NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in mind the right to a speedy trial.' Such an approach is plainly contrary to the settled law laid down by this Court and deserves to be set aside on this ground alone. The right to speedy trial, rooted in Article 21 of the Constitution, is undoubtedly a precious Constitutional right. That said, in matters governed by a special enactment such as the NDPS Act e the recovery is of commercial quantity, the said right must be exercised within the framework of Section service solely on the ground of delay to override it. The constitutional right under Article 21 and the special Section 37, NDPS Act are to be read harmoniously and not placed in opposition to each other. The High Court, by failing to record its satisfaction on the twin conditions under Section 37, has in this d an error.” Furthermore, the petitioner has suffered total incarceration for a period of about 11 months and 02 days and the said period is not sufficient so as to afford regular bail to the petitioner in view of Article 21 of the his regard can be placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as State of Punjab vs. Sukhwinder 2026. Considering the gravity of allegations, the statutory bar DPS Act as also the absence of any this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail in the The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on merits of the case and the investigating agency The impugned order, on its own showing, does not record the of the NDPS Act. Far from recording such satisfaction, the High Court has gone on to observe S Act can be diluted bearing in mind the right to a speedy trial.' Such an approach is plainly contrary to the settled law laid down by this Court and deserves to be set aside on this of the Constitution, is undoubtedly a precious Constitutional right. That said, in NDPS Act, e the recovery is of commercial quantity, the said right Section service solely on the ground of delay to and the special Act are to be read harmoniously and not placed in opposition to each other. The High Court, by failing to , has in this Furthermore, the petitioner has suffered total incarceration for a period of about 11 months and 02 days and the said period is not sufficient so as to afford regular bail to the petitioner in view of Article 21 of the his regard can be placed on the judgment State of Punjab vs. Sukhwinder bar the absence of any this Court is of the considered opinion in the merits and Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove the investigating agency AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.07 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- as also the being influenced with this order. 14. July 06, 202 Ajay -32546-2026 as also the trial Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, ing influenced with this order. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 11 further, in accordance with law, without Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No without AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.07 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document