Successive bail petitions are maintainable if there is a substantial change in circumstances (e.g., extended incarceration). Criminal antecedents alone cannot justify the denial of bail if the specific facts and circumstances of the current case warrant its grant.

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present second petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.143 dated 7.7.2025 under Section 21-B of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 27 of NDPS Act added later on), registered at Police Station Nehianwala, District Bathinda.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question pertains to recovery of 30 grams of heroin from the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 7.7.2025. Learned counsel has urged that the petitioner is a man aged about 74 years and is suffering from various age related ailments. Learned counsel has further urged that the trial proceedings would show that the petitioner is not causing any impediment in the early disposal of the trial. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is also required to lead defence evidence in order to prove his innocence. Learned counsel has further urged that the contraband alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner is 30 grams heroin, which is non-commercial in nature. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 01 year. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature. Learned State counsel further submits that first bail petition of the petitioner was considered and rejected on merits on 11.12.2025. Learned counsel has further submitted that though only 30 grams of heroin was recovered from the petitioner but the petitioner is involved in another FIR(s) as well. Thus, dismissal of the petition in hand is entreated for. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 9.7.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 7.7.2025 and in continuous custody since then. More than 01 year has elapsed since the petitioner was arrested. No doubt the trial is progressing but keeping in view the age of the petitioner, the quantity of the contraband recovered from the petitioner (30 grams of heroin), the pace of trial and nothing tangible having been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is delaying the trial, this Court is inclined to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner.

6.1 As per custody certificate dated 9.7.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 year and 01 day. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in another FIR(s). Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another , 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State , 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana , d