IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

337 CRM-M-29442-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 03.11.2025 Gurmail Singh @ Geli ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Sandeep Singh Bhinder, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to him in case bearing FIR No. 154 dated 19.09.2023, registered under Sections 22, 27 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Barnala, District Barnala. The previous petition was dismissed on

30.01.2025.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on 19.09.2023 on the allegations that the petitioner was apprehended by a police party on the same day and 950 intoxicant tablets of Alprazolam were recovered from him. Since he could not produce any valid license or permit to keep in his possession the recovered drugs, he was formally arrested at the spot.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. A false recovery was planted upon him. After dismissal of his previous petition, no prosecution witness has been examined and the trial is going on at a snail’s pace. There is no likelihood of the conclusion of trial in near future. His continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on regular bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that there is no fresh ground as pleaded in the petition so as to merit interference of this Court and extending benefit of bail to the petitioner. The petition is not even maintainable as there is no change in the circumstances. It is also submitted that in view of the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be released on bail. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. This Court has heard the submissions made by both the sides.

6. It is well-settled law that the Court, while considering an application for grant of bail, has to keep certain factors in mind such as whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, likelihood of the offence being repeated, the nature and gravity of the accusation, severity of the punishment in the event of conviction, the danger of the accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail, and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being threatened, etc. However, at the same time, the period of incarceration is also a relevant factor to be considered while deciding whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with an offence under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are to be satisfied. The rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in this case as the accusations pertain to the recovery of commercial quantity of contraband from the petitioner as well as from the co-accused. However, so far as the maintainability of the petition is concerned, it may be mentioned that an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, and it is the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a subsequent bail application, to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail petition was rejected. The fresh grounds which persuade the Court to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application are also required to be recorded. Reference in this regard can be made to Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 11 SCC 458, wherein it was so observed.

7. In the instant case, the contraband of commercial quantity was recovered from him. The pe