IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Mohit Bansal ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 19.03.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 27.03.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 27.03.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full

4 Full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not

5 reasons thereof applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Arshpreet Khadial, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail to him in case bearing FIR No. 0054 dated 27.03.2025, registered under Section 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Sadar Bathinda.

His previous petition was dismissed by this Court on 26.05.2025.

2. Briefly stated, on 27.03.2025, the police received an information that an unauthorized de-addiction centre was being run at village Buladewala and that narcotic substances could be recovered upon a raid. Acting on the said information, a police party led by Inspector Jagdeep Singh raided a de-additoin centre in village Buladhewala, where co-accused Karaj Singh was found in charge but failed to produce any valid licence. During inspection, 38 patients were found admitted there and a search led to the recovery of 50 tablets of Lorazepam and 980 loose tablets. During interrogation, co-accused Karaj Singh disclosed that the premises belonged to the present petitioner, on the basis of which, he was nominated as an accused. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner sought anticipatory bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, which was dismissed vide order dated 07.04.2025. Then he approached this Court by way of filing a petition bearing CRM-M-20669-2025 but the same was dismissed on 26.05.2025.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The present petition has been filed on the ground that now FSL report has been received as per which, only 50 tablets containing Lorazepam fell within the purview of NDPS Act and rest 980 loose tablets were found containing Paracetamol, Ibuprofen, Cetrizine, Norfloxacin, Loperamaide and Metronidazole, which do not fall within the ambit of NDPS Act at all. The recovered Lorazepam tablets do not fall under commercial quantity. These facts amount to substantial change in circumstances, which entitle the petitioner to seek concession of anticipatory bail. Moreso, he was not the owner of the said de-addiction centre. No recovery has been effected from him. He was not even found present at the spot. He has clean antecedents. He is ready to join the investigation. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. With regard to question of maintainability of the second petition for grant of anticipatory bail, it is submitted by him that the same is very much maintainable as the change in circumstances justifies the filing of successive anticipatory bail applications by an accused. To fortify his argument, he has relied upon the judgments rendered by this Court in Rifakat vs. State of Haryana, CRM-M-30576-2023, decided on 03.07.2023 and Bhisham Singh vs. State of Haryana, CRM-M-13315-2024, decided on 09.04.2024

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the previous petition of the petitioner had been dismissed by this Court by passing a detailed order. There is no new or substantial change in the circumstances. The gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner does not j