A successive bail application is maintainable only upon proof of a substantial material change in circumstances, as judicial propriety prohibits reviewing previous bail orders, especially in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband where Section 37 restrictions apply.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioners have filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 44 of 2023, dated 10.02.2023, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Mandi, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act). Since both the bail petitions have arisen out of the same FIR, they are being taken up together for disposal.

It has been asserted that the petitioners were arrested by the police for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The petitioners are innocent, and they were falsely implicated. The petitioners are permanent residents of Punjab and Maharashtra, and there are no chances of their absconding. The petitioners do not have criminal antecedents. The police have filed the chargesheet before the Court. The prosecution has cited 35 witnesses, and the conclusion of the trial will take some time. The petitioners would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail.

The petitions are opposed by filing a reply. It is asserted that the police had stopped vehicle bearing registration No. PB-01B-9156 on 10.02.2023 at about 12:55 p.m. The petitioner, Mangat Muhammed, was driving the vehicle and the petitioner, Hardik Chawda, was sitting as a passenger. Hardik Chawda tried to give a bag to the driver, Mangat Muhammed, after picking it up from the rear seat, and the driver tried to push the bag towards Hardik Chawda. The police became suspicious and searched the vehicle in the presence of independent witnesses. A bag containing 4.234 kg of Charas was found in the vehicle. The police seized the vehicle and Charas and arrested the petitioners. Hardik Chawda disclosed that he had visited Kasol on 02.02.2023 and called Mangat Muhammad on 08.02.2023. They had purchased the Charas from an unknown person for ₹2,00,000/-. However, they could not identify him because he was wearing a mask. The Charas was sent to SFSL Junga, and it contained 37.46% w/w Resin as per the report of SFSL Junga. The call detail records of the petitioner and driver were obtained, and it was found that they were in contact with each other from 08.02.2023 till 10.02.2023. The mobile phone was registered in the name of Hardik Chawda’s mother. It was found from the call detail record of the petitioner, Mangat Muhammad, that he had visited Kullu from Chandigarh three times between 05.02.2023 and 09.02.2023. His location was found to be at Ajijpur Toll Plaza, Punjab, where he had paid the toll tax for the vehicle bearing registration no. PB-01B-9156 at 3:34 p.m. The petitioners were found in the vehicle from which the recovery of Charas was effected. The owner issued a certificate stating that Mangat Muhammad was the driver. The petitioner, Hardik Chawda, was in touch with the owner and had called him 212 times during the last year. The petitioners, Mangat Muhammad and Hardik Chawda, were in touch with each other w.e.f. 08.02.2023 till 10.02.2023 for about seven times. Gurtej Singh made a wrong statement to the police that the driver of the vehicle was some other person, and the petitioner, Hardik Chawda, was a passenger. The prosecution has cited 35 witnesses, out of whom two witnesses of the main challan and four witnesses of the supplementary challan are to be examined. The matter is listed on 03.06.2026 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mandi. Hence, the status report.

I have heard Ms Kiran Dhiman, learned counsel for the petitioner Mangat Mohammad and M/s Rakesh Chaudhary and Panku Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner Hardik Chawda and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

Mr Rakesh Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Hardik Chawda, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely