Mere Prolongation of Custody, in the Absence of Any Other Supervening Circumstance, Cannot by Itself Be a Sufficient Ground to Revisit Earlier Bail Rejection; Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Bail Plea in Commercial Quantity NDPS Case
Case Name: Harsh Kumar v. Union of India, Narcotics Control Bureau
Date of Judgment: 7 October 2026
Citation: CRM-M-42736-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that mere prolongation of custody, in the absence of any other supervening circumstance, cannot, by itself, be construed as a valid or sufficient ground to revisit the findings earlier recorded while declining the previous prayer for grant of regular bail. A second or successive bail petition is maintainable even after dismissal of an earlier application on merits, but its success ordinarily requires a substantial, material or supervening change in circumstances warranting reconsideration.
The Court clarified that continued incarceration does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, particularly in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotic substances. Where an earlier bail application has been dismissed by a reasoned order and no significant factual or legal development is demonstrated, merely reiterating previously available grounds, coupled with additional custody, is insufficient to justify a different conclusion.
Summary: The petitioner filed a second application for regular bail under Section 483 BNSS in NCB Crime Case No. 51 dated 08.12.2024, registered under Sections 8, 22, 29, 61 and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution concerned the alleged recovery of a commercial quantity of psychotropic substances, comprising approximately 1.37 crore tablets containing Alprazolam, Tramadol and Zolpidem Tartrate.
The petitioner’s earlier bail application had been dismissed on merits by the High Court on 11.02.2026. A subsequent special leave petition before the Supreme Court was dismissed as withdrawn on 29.05.2026.
Seeking reconsideration, the petitioner relied upon his incarceration since 03.01.2025, the absence of examination of prosecution witnesses, completion of investigation and alleged non-compliance with mandatory NDPS provisions. He also disputed his implication through the disclosure statement of a co-accused. The Narcotics Control Bureau opposed bail, invoking the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the magnitude of the alleged recovery.
Referring to Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana and Another, 2024:PHHC:054064, the High Court reiterated that successive bail applications are legally maintainable, but ordinarily require a substantial change in circumstances rather than a repetition of grounds already considered.
The Court found that the grounds advanced were substantially identical to those examined while dismissing the first bail application. The only subsequent circumstance was approximately seven-and-a-half months of additional incarceration, which, having regard to the nature and quantity of the alleged contraband, was insufficient to warrant reconsideration. No material change in the factual or legal position had been established.
Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petitioner’s second application for regular bail, holding that further incarceration, without any substantial or supervening change in circumstances, did not justify revisiting the earlier order rejecting bail on merits. The Court found no sufficient fresh ground for release, particularly considering the commercial quantity of contraband involved.