CRM-M-22827-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22827-2026 (O&M) Date of decision:08.07.2026 Saqib Mustaq @ Shakib Mustak ... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Ankur Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. ... Manisha Batra, J. (Oral). 1. The instant one is the second petition for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No.18, dated 21.01.2025, registered under Sections 20-B and 29 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station GRP Ambala Cantt, District Ambala. His previous petition bearing No. CRM-M-49557- 2025 had been dismissed by this Court as on 19.11.2025 by making the following observations: “The petitioner is alleged to have supplied commercial quantity of contraband to accused Shabbir Ahmed Sheikh for the purpose of selling the same to one Abdul in Maharashtra. He also got recovered his mobile phone containing WhatsApp chats between him and the co-accused. A copy of the said chats has been annexed with the status report and prima facie reflects the active involvement of the petitioner in the offence. The allegations against him are serious in nature. Co-accused HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.08 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22827-2026 (O&M) -2- Arif, who is the brother of the petitioner, is yet to be arrested. Taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the quantum of sentence that may ensue upon conviction, and the attendant facts and circumstances, but without commenting on the merits of the case lest it prejudice the trial, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.” 2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused, which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. No recovery is to be effected from him. He is in custody since 23.01.2025. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished a new ground to him to seek concession of bail. The trial has not progressed much as only 03 out of 16 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. His antecedents are clean. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be extended the benefit of bail. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the petition is not maintainable as it is a successive petition. The previous petition as filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by passing a detailed order. There is no substantial change in the circumstances. The petitioner was actively involved in the commission of subject offences. He himself got recovered his mobile phone containing whatsApp chats between him and the co- accused Shabbir Ahmed from whom recovery of the contraband was effected and shows that it was he, who had supplied the contraband. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 4. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.08 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22827-2026 (O&M) -3- counsel for the parties. 5. So far as the question of maintainability of the petition is concerned, it may be mentioned that an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, and it is the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a subsequent bail application, to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail petition was rejected. The fresh grounds which persuade the Court to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application are also required to be recorded. Reference in this regard can be made to Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 11 SCC 458, wherein it was so observed. 6. The previous petition as filed by the petitioner had been dismissed by passing a detailed order on 19.11.2025. There is no substantial change in the circumstances except the extended period of custody of the petitioner. The allegations against him are quite serious in nature and shows his active participation in the occurrence and also that he was the supplier of the contraband. The whatsApp chats in his mobile phone clearly show this fact. Undoubtedly, a successive bail petition is maintainable but for such petition to succeed, the petitioner must show some substantial or drastic change in the circumstances which has not been shown in this case. Rather, it clearly appears to the Court that this petition has been filed to misuse the process of law as it has been filed within a short span of time from the dismissal of his previous petition. However, prolonged period of custody is not a sufficient ground for enlarging an accused on bail, when the alleged offence is serious. As such, finding no compelling ground to allow the petition, the same is dismissed. HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.08 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22827-2026 (O&M) -4- 7. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial. 8. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) 08.07.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.08 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document