The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a second regular bail plea by an accused in a Narcotics Control Bureau case involving the recovery of over 1.37 crore psychotropic tablets, holding that a longer period of custody, without any other supervening circumstance, is not a sufficient ground to revisit the earlier rejection.

"Continued incarceration, without any material change in the factual or legal landscape, does not ipso facto entitle an accused to the concession of regular bail," observed Justice Sumeet Goel.

The petitioner is an accused in an NCB Amritsar case registered in December 2024 under Sections 8, 22, 29, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act, concerning the recovery of 1,37,11,610 tablets containing Alprazolam, Tramadol and Zolpidem Tartrate, weighing about 5,772 kg with their strips. This is a commercial quantity.

His first regular bail plea was dismissed on merits by the High Court on February 11, 2026, in a batch of eight connected cases. The Special Leave Petition he filed against that order was dismissed as withdrawn by the Supreme Court on May 29, 2026.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that he had been in custody since January 3, 2025, that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act had not been complied with, and that the trial had not progressed, with no prosecution witness examined so far. It was submitted that he was implicated on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, which was not admissible, and that the company's entire record had been handed over and the complaint already filed.

The NCB opposed the plea, citing the huge commercial quantity and the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and argued that the petitioner was likely to abscond or interfere with witnesses if released.

No substantial change in circumstances

The Court referred to its earlier decision in Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana, which held that second or successive bail petitions are maintainable, whether the earlier plea was withdrawn or dismissed on merits, but that to succeed, the accused must show a substantial change in circumstances, and "a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice."

Applying these principles, the Court held that the present petition was a successive attempt on "substantially the same set of facts and grounds," and that the submissions made were all available when the first plea was decided. The only new circumstance was that the petitioner had spent more than seven and a half months further in custody since the earlier rejection.

The Court held that such a change must be significant enough to justify fresh consideration and persuade the Court to take a different view from the one previously adopted. It concluded that the further incarceration, "when seen vis-à-vis the nature/ quantity of contraband recovered," was not enough to warrant interference.

Noting the absence of any fresh or supervening circumstance since the dismissal of the first plea and the withdrawal of the SLP, the Court dismissed the petition, clarifying that its observations would not be construed as an opinion on the merits.