The severity of allegations in a narcotics case prohibits bail unless substantial changes in circumstances are demonstrated, regardless of the length of pre-trial custody.

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

The instant bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short “ BNSS ”) for grant of bail in case FIR No. 71 of 2023, dated 05.05.2023, under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short “NDPS Act”), registered at Police Station Manali, District Kullu, H.P.

2. The facts giving rise to the instant petition can be summarized as under:

2(a). On 04.05.2023, the police party was on patrolling duty and around 10:00 p.m., when they were present near Jeep Union, Bhootnath Mandir Manali, they received a secret information that near Hotel Hillans, Vishavdeep @ Aalla (petitioner herein), who was residing in the building of one Prem Singh Thakur, as a tenant, was doing illegal trade of chitta/heroin and if his room was searched, huge quantity of chitta/heroin could be recovered. Acting upon the aforesaid information, the police party reached near Hotel Hillans and associated Prem Singh Thakur and Parvesh as independent witnesses in the proceedings. In presence of the aforesaid witnesses, the police party entered the room of Vishavdeep @ Aalla and on seeing the police party, he got perplexed. Thereafter, the police conducted search of his room and found a bag. On opening the bag, the police found a packet wrapped with silver foil, which was containing some whitish and yellowish granule like powder and some solid yellowish substance. The recovered substance was found to be chitta/heroin, which on weighment was found to be 266 grams. After completion of all the codal formalities, petitioner Vishavdeep @ Aalla was arrested and investigation commenced.

3. The bail application has been filed on the ground that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in judicial custody for the last more than two years and ten months and if he is not enlarged on bail, his entire life will be ruined. He further contended that there is inordinate delay in conclusion of trial, which infringes upon the right of speedy trial of the petitioner, as such, he is entitled to be released on bail on the ground that his right of speedy trial has been violated.

4. Per contra, the learned Deputy Advocate General opposed the bail application on the ground that keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and quantity of the recovered contraband, i.e. commercial quantity, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. He further contended that the present bail application filed by the petitioner is the successive one, which is liable to be dismissed as there is no change in circumstances after the dismissal of the earlier bail application.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and also carefully gone through the material available on record.

6. Pertinently, the present is the successive bail application filed by the petitioner. Earlier, the petitioner had preferred bail application being Cr. MP(M) No. 1800 of 2024 seeking regular bail before this Court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 17.12.2024.

7. It is a well settled principle of law that when the successive bail application comes before the Court, the Court would be very conscious while considering the same. As held by the Hon’bl