Court says withdrawn earlier petition cannot be revived without new circumstances; cites vehicle ownership, CDR, WhatsApp chats and tower location as incriminating factors in commercial-quantity drug case.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a second anticipatory bail petition filed by Ravi Kumar in an NDPS case, holding that a fresh plea for the same relief is not maintainable in the absence of any subsequent change in circumstances.
Justice Alok Jain noted that the petitioner’s earlier anticipatory bail application had already been argued on merits and was withdrawn only after the court was not inclined to grant relief. In that proceeding, counsel had stated that the petitioner was ready to surrender before the trial court. The court said that the petitioner could not now attempt to reopen the matter merely by engaging a different lawyer and raising additional arguments.
The court rejected the petitioner’s claim that he had not instructed his earlier counsel to make the surrender statement. It observed that a duly engaged advocate speaks for the litigant in judicial proceedings, and such statements cannot ordinarily be disowned later at the “mere ipse dixit” of the party. Allowing litigants to repudiate their counsel’s statements simply by changing lawyers, the court said, would undermine the credibility and sanctity of court proceedings.
On merits, the court also found no reason to grant anticipatory bail. It recorded that 1033 kg 970 grams of doda/chura post, a commercial quantity, had been recovered from a co-accused driver. The petitioner was the owner of the truck allegedly used for transporting the contraband. The State pointed to CDR details, WhatsApp messages showing repeated communication before the recovery, and tower location data placing the petitioner at Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh, where the contraband was allegedly loaded.
Considering the nature of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, and the petitioner’s conduct, the court held that he was not entitled to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. It also observed that the use of commercial vehicles in narcotics trafficking facilitates wider distribution and warrants strict scrutiny.
The court said the second petition amounted to an abuse of process and remarked that exemplary costs of Rs. 1 lakh could have been imposed, but refrained from doing so on the request of counsel. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Bottom Line :
Second anticipatory bail petition under NDPS Act, after earlier petition was withdrawn on merits when Court was not inclined to grant relief, is not maintainable in absence of any subsequent change in circumstances; mere change of counsel, improved pleadings, or plea that earlier counsel acted without instructions cannot furnish a fresh ground. In NDPS case involving commercial quantity, ownership of vehicle and incriminating material like CDR, WhatsApp records and tower location are relevant factors to deny anticipatory bail.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 15(c)
Ravi Kumar v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2983052
