CRM-M-39991-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 238 CRM-M-39991-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.07.2026 Satnam Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. S. S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. (Through VC) Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The instant one is the second petition that has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.212 dated 30.08.2025, registered under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station City Ratia, District Fatehabad. His previous petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 12.05.2026. 2. As per the allegations, on 30.08.2025, a police party headed by SI Sanjay Kumar was present near the canal bridge on the Ratia-Bhuna Road for patrolling duties when a secret informer informed that the petitioner, Satnam Singh, who was engaged in the business of selling intoxicating tablets, would shortly pass through the said route carrying narcotic tablets on a Hero HF Deluxe motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-59E-8058. Believing the information to be reliable, a naka was laid near Guru Nanak Public School, Bhuna Road. On noticing the police party, the petitioner attempted to turn back MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.27 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39991-2026 (O&M) -2- but was apprehended. During search, the petitioner was found in conscious possession of:  34 tablets of Buprenorphine (1 mg) contained in four strips weighing 7.46 grams; and  56 tablets of Etizolam (0.5 mg) contained in seven strips weighing 12.35 grams. 3. Since the petitioner could not produce any valid license or permit to keep in his possession the recovered drugs, he was formally arrested at the spot. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan was presented in the Court and presently, the petitioner is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offence. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the recovered tablets were lawfully possessed by him pursuant to a valid prescription issued by Shree Balaji Manorog Hospital and De-addiction Centre for therapeutic purposes and, therefore, no offence under the NDPS Act is made out. Mandatory provisions of the law were not complied by the police. The petitioner has been in custody since 30.08.2025. Investigation stands completed and challan has already been presented. Conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. His continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Notice of motion. 6. Learned State counsel has advance notice of the petition. Custody certificate of the petitioner has been filed. It is argued by learned State counsel that commercial quantity of narcotic drugs has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. It is argued that the recovery has been MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.27 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39991-2026 (O&M) -3- effected after due compliance with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. Since the quantity of the recovered contraband falls under commercial quantity, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are fully attracted against the petitioner. The trial is going on at a proper pace. There are chances of the petitioner’s absconding or indulging in similar offences, if released on bail. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 8. The petitioner is accused of possessing commercial quantity of psychotropic substance i.e. Etizolam and non-commercial quantity of Buprenorphine. Since the alleged recovery is of commercial quantity qua Etizolam, the embargo contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act would obviously be attracted against the petitioner. This Court is required to record satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. On the basis of the material presently available on record, such satisfaction cannot be recorded. Moreso, the petitioner has recently withdrawn his previous petition and has filed the present one without indicating any substantial change in circumstances. 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 MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.27 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-39991-2026 (O&M) -4- 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. Investigation in the present case has been concluded and challan has been filed. Trial is going on and there is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the same. Accordingly, finding no ground to grant the concession of regular bail, the present petition is dismissed. 9. It is, however, clarified that any observation made herein is only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case during trial. 27.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.27 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document