A successive bail application for offences under the NDPS Act is only maintainable upon demonstrating a material change in circumstances; moreover, the statutory twin-test embargo under Section 37 must be satisfied even when a claim of prolonged incarceration is raised.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 190 of 2023, dated 10.12.2023, registered at Police Station Damtal, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’)

It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police were checking the vehicle at Bhadroya Chowk on 10.12.2023, when a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01C-1826 came from the Lodhwan side. The police signalled the driver of the vehicle to stop it and went towards the vehicle. The occupants got frightened after seeing the police. The driver identified himself as Kewal (present petitioner), and the person sitting beside the driver identified himself as Maan Singh. The police searched the vehicle and recovered 2.500 kilograms of charas. The police seized the charas and arrested the occupants of the vehicle. The police filed the charge sheet before the Court after the completion of the investigation. The custody of the petitioner is not required. The petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 1558 of 2025, and was dismissed by this Court on 09.09.2025. The petitioner assailed the order passed by this Court before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but the Special Leave Petition was withdrawn on 16.12.2025. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner is the sole earner of the family. Two years and three months have elapsed since the petitioner’s arrest. The prosecution has not completed the evidence, which violates the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police were checking the vehicles near Bhadroya Chowk on 10.12.2023, when a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01C-1826 came from the Lodhwan side. The police signalled the driver of the vehicle to stop it. The occupants became frightened after seeing the police. The driver identified himself as Kewal (the present petitioner), and the person sitting beside the driver identified himself as Maan Singh. The police checked the vehicle in the presence of Kamal Kishore and Ajay Pathania and recovered 2.500 kgs of cannabis. The police seized the cannabis and arrested the petitioner and the co-accused. Cannabis was sent to the SFSL Junga and was confirmed to be a sample of charas. Police arrested Yaseen and Isamdeen, alias Taimu, based on the disclosure statement made by the petitioner. The prosecution has cited 25 witnesses, out of whom the statements of 16 witnesses have been recorded, and the matter is now listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 30.04.2026. Hence, the status report.

I have heard Mr Lovneesh Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

Mr Loveesh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The prosecution has failed to complete the evidence, which violates the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

Mr Lokender Kutlehira, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of a commercial quantity of charas. The rigours of Section 37 apply to the present case, and the petitioner has not satisfied the twin conditions laid down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner had filed earlier a bail petition, which was dismissed by this Court. A subsequent bail petition only lies when there is a change in the circumstances. The petitioner has failed to show any change in the circumstances, and the present petition is not maintainable; hence, he prayed that t