Successive NDPS bail applications require material change like trial progress and long incarceration; antecedents not bar if substantial sentence undergone and speedy trial violated. Bail granted despite prior dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 5 of 2025, dated 04.01.2025, registered at Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

2. It has been asserted that the police were on patrolling duty on 04.1.2025 at around 5:50 p.m., when they received a secret information that Mohit Sharma (petitioner) and Mohit were standing near a motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-12Q-1679 at Bhud Market to sell heroin. The information was reduced into writing and was sent to the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Baddi, District Solan, and H.P. The police went to the spot and found two persons sitting on the motorcycle bearing registration No.HP-12Q-1679. The driver disclosed his name, Mohit Sharma (present petitioner), and the pillion rider disclosed his name, Mohit Kumar. The police searched the motorcycle and recovered a transparent pouch kept near the speedometer. The police checked the pouch and recovered 6.730 grams of heroin. The police arrested the petitioner and the co-accused and seized the heroin. The police filed the charge sheet after the completion of the investigation. Out of 15 witnesses, statements of 6 witnesses have been recorded. The quantity of heroin stated to have been recovered from the petitioner’s possession is intermediate, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. Four registered against the petitioner out of which three FIRs are pending against him, and he was released on bail in one FIR. The petitioner would abide by 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 patrolling on 04.01.2025 when they received secret information that Mohit Sharma (the present petitioner) and Mohit Kumar were selling heroin. The police documented the information and sent it to the Supervisory Officer. They joined independent witnesses and went to the location where the petitioner and the co-accused were found sitting on a motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-12Q-1679. The driver of the motorcycle identified himself as Mohit Sharma (the present petitioner), and the pillion rider identified himself as Mohit Kumar. The police searched the motorcycle and found a transparent polythene packet containing 6.730 grams of heroin kept near the speedometer. The police seized the heroin and arrested the petitioner and the co-accused. The heroin was sent to the FSL and was confirmed to be diacetylmorphine (Heroin). Four FIRs have been filed against the petitioner. The police filed a charge sheet before the Court on 28.02.2025. Statements of six witnesses have been recorded, and the matter is listed for the recording of statements of nine witnesses w.e.f. 25.05.2026 till 30.05.2026. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Parikshit Rathour, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Parikshit Rathour, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. As per the prosecution, 6.730 grams of heroin were recovered. The petitioner has remained in custody for more than one year, and keeping in view the principle of proportionality, the petitioner has undergone a substantial part of the