CRM-M-35917-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 250 CRM-M-35917-2026 Date of decision: 15th July, 2026 Tina @ Teena ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Manoj R. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. *** MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):- 1. The instant one is the second petition for grant of regular bail filed by the petitioner in a case arising out of FIR No. 297 dated 03.10.2025 registered under Sections 21 and 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’) (Sections 27(A) and 29 of NDPS Act were added later on) at Police Station Civil Lines Batala, Police Distt. Batala, District Gurdaspur. The previous petition bearing CRM-M No. 67092 of 2025, filed by her, had been dismissed as withdrawn on 29.05.2026. 2. As per the allegations, on 03.10.2025, the accused Jatinder Kumar @ Kaka Bhaiya was apprehended and recovery of 13 grams of heroin was effected from his conscious possession. The recovered contraband was taken into possession. Accused Jatinder suffered disclosure statement to the PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.15 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35917-2026 -2- effect that he had purchased the contraband from the present petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 04.10.2025. Recovery of 15 grams of heroin, one electronic weighing scale and drug money amounting to ₹4,000/- was effected from her. Investigation now stands completed. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of a disclosure statement of the co-accused, which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. She has been in custody for a period of over nine months. There are no chances of the trial being concluded in the near future. She is on bail in the other cases registered against her. It is, therefore, argued that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the petition is not maintainable, being the second petition for grant of regular bail, her first petition having been dismissed on 29.05.2026. It is a successive petition. There is no change in the circumstances. She is a habitual offender and there are chances of her committing similar offences, if extended the benefit of bail. It is, thus, prayed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 6. 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 PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.15 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35917-2026 -3- which the earlier bail petition was rejected. In the instant case, the previous bail petition filed by the petitioner had been dismissed as withdrawn on 29.05.2026. Within a period of about one month, the present petition has been filed. Neither is there any mention in the petition, nor could learned counsel for the petitioner point out any substantive or substantial change in the circumstances. As such, the previous petition had apparently been dismissed on account of the fact that this Court was not inclined to allow the same. The antecedents of the petitioner are also not clean as, according to the custody certificate, she is shown to be involved in three more cases of similar nature. Taking the aforesaid facts into consideration, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition cannot be said to be maintainable at this stage and, otherwise also, does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 7. It is clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 8. Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. [MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 15th July, 2026 Parveen Sharma 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.15 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document