Back
Mere Incarceration No Ground For Second Bail In NDPS Case:
The has dismissed a second regular bail plea filed by Harsh Kumar, an accused in a massive case involving the recovery of over 1.37 crore psychotropic tablets. Justice Sumeet Goel held that , without any substantial change in circumstances, is insufficient to revisit an earlier bail rejection.
The Second Attempt at Bail
The petitioner, Harsh Kumar, was arrested on , in connection with NCB Crime Case No. 51 of 2024 registered at NCB Police Station, Amritsar, under . The case pertains to the recovery of a : 1,37,11,610 tablets containing Alprazolam, Tramadol, and Zolpidem Tartrate, weighing approximately 5,772.584 kg including strips.
His first regular bail application was dismissed on merits by the High Court on , in a batch of eight connected cases. A subsequent Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the was withdrawn on .
In the present petition, argued under , the petitioner relied on his continued incarceration for over one and a half years, alleged non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, and the fact that the trial had not progressed with no prosecution witness examined so far. It was further submitted that he had been implicated solely on the basis of a made by a co-accused, Sonu Singh, which is .
The Arguments
Senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the entire company record had been supplied to the investigating officer and the complaint had already been filed.
"Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 01½ years and, thus, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars,"
the counsel submitted.
Opposing the plea, the NCB's counsel highlighted the massive and invoked the stringent provisions of , which imposes strict conditions for granting bail in such cases. It was argued that if released, the petitioner might abscond or tamper with prosecution evidence.
The Court's Reasoning
Justice Sumeet Goel referred extensively to the High Court's earlier decision in
Rafiq Khan vs. State of Haryana and another
(2024: PHHC:054064), which laid down the principles governing
. That judgment held that such petitions are maintainable even if the earlier one was dismissed on merits, but the petitioner must demonstrate a
"
"
– a mere superficial or ostensible change will not suffice.
Applying these principles, the Court observed that the present petition was a
"
."
All submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel were available for consideration when the first bail plea was rejected.
Key Observations
The Court made a pivotal observation that encapsulates the :
"Continued incarceration, without any material change in the factual or legal landscape, does not entitle an accused to the ."
It noted that the only changed circumstance after the dismissal of the first bail plea and the withdrawal of the SLP was that the petitioner had suffered further incarceration for a period of more than seven and a half months. However, the Court held:
"This extended incarceration of the petitioner, by itself, when seen vis-à-vis the nature/ quantity of contraband recovered, is not a ground sufficient to warrant the interference of this Court in the present successive attempt for securing regular bail."
The Court emphasized that for a second or successive bail petition to succeed, the change in circumstances must be
"of such significance as to justify a
of the matter and would persuade the Court to take a view different from the one previously adopted."
No such worthy fresh circumstance was brought to the Court's notice.
The Verdict
Finding no fresh or since the earlier rejection, the High Court dismissed the bail petition. It clarified that nothing said in the order should be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the main case. The pending miscellaneous application was also disposed of.
The decision reinforces the legal principle that , without a , cannot be a valid ground to reopen a previously rejected bail plea, especially in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics where the rigours of apply.
