IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Nikka Singh @ Ghugi ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 20.03.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 23.03.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 23.03.2026 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. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate with Mr. Gaurav, Advocate and Mr. Gurnaz Singh Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J :-

The instant one is the second petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 51 dated 28.07.2024 registered under Sections 22(c) and 27 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Phul, District Bathinda. The previous petition as filed by him bearing CRM-

M- No.8874-2025 had been dismissed vide order dated 21.08.2025.

2. The petitioner is booked for the commission of the aforementioned offence and is facing trial on the allegation that on 28.07.2024, he along with the co-accused was found in conscious possession of a commercial quantity of intoxicating tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride.

The previous petition as filed by has been dismissed on 21.08.2025.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody continuously w.e.f. 28.07.2024. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished a reason to him to seek concession of bail. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be released on bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. His previous petition had been dismissed by this Court by passing a detailed order. There is no substantive or drastic change in the circumstances and as such, the petition is not maintainable. It is also argued that the trial is going on at a proper pace since only 03 witnesses remain to be examined. The antecedents of the petitioner are not clean as he has remained involved in several other cases. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

6. So far as the question of maintainability of the petition being a successive petition filed just after 2.5 months from the date of dismissal of previous petition is concerned, it may be mentioned that though a second/successive petition is maintainable, however, for such petition to succeed the petitioner is essentially required to show some substantial change in the circumstances. Showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change does not suffice. Some cogent and lucid reasons are required to be given by the petitioner for that purpose. In the instant case, however, the petitioner has not given any such new reason on the basis of which he can be held entitled to be released on bail. The previous petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by making following observations:-

“As per the allegations, the petitioner along with above named co-accused was apprehended by the police party and the recovery of 7880 intoxicant tablets of Tramadol HCL was effected from them. The quantity of the recovered contraband falls under commercial quantity. Hence, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would certainly be attracted in this case. There are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner. There is nothing on record to suggest that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of trial. T