A subsequent bail application can only be considered if there is a material change in circumstances, as established by judicial precedents.

JUDGMENT :

(Rakesh Kainthla, J.)

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide F.I.R. No. 7 of 2024, dated 20.01.2024 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’) registered at Police Station Haroli, District Una, H.P. The petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. According to the prosecution, the police received secret information regarding the presence of contraband in the house of Smt. Sunita Devi, who was granted bail on 29.02.2024 by the learned Special Judge-II, Una, District Una, H.P. The quantity of contraband/poppy husk stated to have been recovered in the present case is 15 kg and 190 grams, which is an intermediate quantity, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. No recovery was made during the personal search of the petitioner. The petitioner has been behind the bars since 20^th January 2024. The investigation is complete, and a charge sheet has been filed before the Court. The petitioner had visited his mother's house, and he resides separately from her. As a truck driver, he stays away from home. F.I.R. No. 66 of 2018, dated 08.03.2018, and F.I.R. No. 87 of 2021, dated 13.05.2021, were previously registered against the petitioner at Police Station Haroli. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 20.01.2024. They received secret information at 1:55 p.m. that Sunita Devi was selling Poppy Husk from her home, and a huge quantity of Poppy Husk could be recovered in case of a search of her house. The police completed the formalities and associated two independent witnesses. The police went to the house of Sunita Devi, where she and the present petitioner were found. The police searched the house in the presence of Sunita and independent witnesses and recovered 2 kg and 546 grams of Poppy Husk from the room kept in a carry bag. The police also found 12 kg 644 grams of Poppy Husk from outside the house at a place pointed out by the present petitioner. In this manner, 15 kg and 190 grams of Poppy Husk was recovered by the police. The petitioner and Sunita Devi could not produce any permit/license for possessing Poppy Husk. The police arrested the petitioner and Sunita Devi and seized the Poppy Husk. It was sent to FSL, and as per the result, it was found to be a sample of Poppy Straw. F.I.R. No. 66 of 2018 and F.I.R. No. 87 of 2021 were registered against the present petitioner. The challan has been filed before the Court, and the matter was listed for recording the statements of the prosecution’s witnesses on 10.04.2025. Statements of 14 witnesses out of 20 cited by the prosecution have been recorded. The petitioner would intimidate the witnesses and would indulge in a similar offence in case of release on bail. Hence, the status report.

3. I have heard Mr. Lakshay Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

4. Mr. Lakshay Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. According to the prosecution's case, the police had received secret information that Sunita Devi was in possession of the Poppy Husk and was selling it from her home. The petitioner had merely visited the house of Sunita Devi, who is his mother. The petitioner cannot be held liable for the possession of the Poppy Husk. The co-accused has been released on bail. The challan has been filed before the Court, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the accused in custody. There is a delay in the progress of the trial, and the petitioner's right to a speedy trial is being violated. The petitioner