Successive bail applications require a material change in circumstances; mere delay in trial does not meet the statutory conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 146 of 2024, dated 08.10.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’) at Police Station Kala Amb, District Sirmour, H.P.

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested in F.I.R. No.146 of 2024, dated 08.10.2024. He has nothing to do with the commission of crime. No recovery was made from his possession. The investigation is complete, and the charge sheet has been filed before the Court. The petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition bearing Cr.MP(M) No. 1051 of 2025, which was dismissed by this Court on 04.08.2025. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police were on patrolling duty on 08.10.2024 when they received secret information at about 1:15 a.m. that the petitioner would be transporting a huge quantity of charas in his vehicle bearing registration No. HP-16A-3706. The information was written down, and the police waited for the vehicle, with Forest Guard Vishal, at some distance from the check post. A vehicle bearing registration No. HP-16A-3706 came to the spot at around 1:50 a.m. The police signalled the driver to stop the vehicle. The driver tried to speed away from the spot; however, the police apprehended him. He revealed his name as Jagdish Thakur (the present petitioner). The police searched the vehicle and found a carry bag containing 2 kilograms of charas, concealed beneath the front seat, adjacent to the driver’s seat. The police completed the formalities and seized the charas. The police arrested the petitioner. The Charas was sent to SFSL Junga, and as per the report, it was an extract of cannabis and a sample of charas. The police filed the charge-sheet before the learned Trial Court. Out of seventeen witnesses statements of eight witnesses have already been recorded. The matter was listed on 10.03.2026 for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Ms Reena Thakur, learned vice counsel representing the petitioner and Mr Parshant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

5. Ms Reena Thakur, learned vice counsel representing the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The police have filed the charge-sheet before the Court, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of 2 kilograms of charas, which is a commercial quantity. The rigours of Section 37 apply to the present case. The petitioner has failed to satisfy the twin conditions laid down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, which was dismissed by this Court. A subsequent bail petition lies only when there is a change in the circumstances. The petitioner has not pleaded any change in the circumstances, and he is not entitled to bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the recor