JUDGMENT :

SUMEET GOEL, J.

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.101 dated 23.5.2024 under Sections 15 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Sadar Khanna, Police District Khanna, District Ludhiana.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 150 Kgs. of poppy husk allegedly recovered from the petitioner and his co-accused, on 20.11.2024 while they were travelling together in a truck.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 23.9.2024. Learned senior counsel has further argued that the investigation has already been completed and 14 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none has been examined till date. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 01 year and 7 months. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that previous bail petition preferred on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 22.9.2025 but there is no progress in the trial since then. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is accused of offence pertaining to commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, and thus, his bail petition is barred in view of the Section 37 of the Act. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 11.1.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 23.5.2024 wherein after investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 19.9.2024. Total 14 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none has been examined. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1 Indubitably, the present petition is the 2nd attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 22.9.2025. However, keeping in view the extended incarceration of the petitioner and no substantial progress in trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRA-S-2332-2023 titled as Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another; relevant whereof reads as under:

“10. As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following principles emerge:

I. Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof.

II. Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-

prosecution or earlier petition was dismissed on merits.

III. For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. The metaphoric expression of seeking second/successive bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances.

IV. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to