Court underscores necessity of substantial change in circumstances for successive bail petitions under NDPS Act; mere prolonged custody insufficient to grant bail.
In a significant decision delivered on October 7, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the second regular bail petition filed by Harsh Kumar in a high-profile narcotics case involving the recovery of over 1.37 crore tablets containing Alprazolam, Tramadol, and Zolpidem Tartrate, weighing approximately 5772.584 kilograms. The case, registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) at Amritsar, pertains to violations of multiple sections (8, 22, 29, 61, 85) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
The petitioner, Harsh Kumar, has been in custody since January 3, 2025, and had earlier filed a regular bail petition which was dismissed on merits by the same High Court in February 2026. The subsequent challenge to that order before the Supreme Court was withdrawn by the petitioner in May 2026. Undeterred, Kumar filed a successive bail petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking release on bail citing prolonged incarceration, procedural delays in trial, and alleged procedural lapses in compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act.
However, the High Court, presided over by Justice Sumeet Goel, reiterated the well-established legal principle that a second or successive bail petition is maintainable in law but can only succeed if there is a substantial, material, or supervening change in circumstances after the rejection of the earlier petition. Mere continuation of custody, without fresh facts or legal grounds, does not justify revisiting earlier judicial findings.
The Court relied on its recent precedent in Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana (2024 PHHC 54064), which clarified that while personal liberty is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the same must be balanced against the rights of victims and societal interests. The judgment emphasized that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act-particularly in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics-continue to apply strictly and bail cannot be granted lightly.
The prosecution argued that the magnitude of contraband seized, the risk of absconding, and the potential for tampering with evidence justified continued custody. The Court accepted these submissions, noting that no fresh material had been placed on record by the petitioner to warrant bail.
Ultimately, the Court dismissed the successive bail petition, making it clear that prolonged incarceration alone does not ipso facto entitle an accused to bail and that the trial process must run its due course without unnecessary interruption in cases involving serious narcotics offenses.
This ruling serves as a stern reminder about the stringent approach courts take under the NDPS Act in handling bail applications related to commercial quantity drug offenses, underscoring the judiciary's commitment to curbing drug trafficking and safeguarding societal interests.
Bottom Line:
NDPS Act - Successive regular bail petition in commercial quantity recovery case - Mere further incarceration, without any substantial or supervening change in circumstances, is not sufficient to grant bail after earlier bail plea was dismissed on merits and SLP was withdrawn - Rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act continue to apply.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Sections 8, 22, 29, 37, 61, 85
