Manjot Singh Alias Jotta Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Manjot Singh Alias Jotta Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose two earlier regular bail petitions had already been dismissed, is entitled to release on regular bail solely on the ground of the extended period of his incarceration, in the absence of any substantial change in circumstances.

Court's answer

When successive bail applications come before the Court, it must be very cautious; such applications can be entertained only when some substantial change is established by the accused making him entitled to bail.

Ratio / Principle

Merely the extended or prolonged period of incarceration is not a ground to extend the benefit of bail in such cases, particularly where the offence is grave.

Key takeaways

No substantial or drastic change from the date of dismissal of the petitioner's previous bail petition has been pointed out or made out from the pleas taken by him; accordingly, it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the petition does not deserve to be allowed.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular bail - third successive petition (S.483 BNSS, 2023) arising out of FIR No. 55 dated 31.03.2024, Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur (Section 22 NDPS Act, 1985; Section 25 Arms Act, 1959), following dismissal of CRM-M-31012-2024 on 30.09.2024 and CRM-M-64286-2024 on 13.01.2025. Held: successive bail applications can be entertained only upon some substantial change established by the accused; mere extended/prolonged incarceration, without any drastic or material change in circumstances, does not entitle the petitioner to bail in a grave offence involving commercial quantity of contraband (16.65 grams Etizolam tablets per table entry 238 ZZC, attracting rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act) - reliance placed on State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 Supreme Court, 2292 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another, (2004) 7 SCC 528. Petition dismissed, expressly without comment on the merits of the case.

CRM-M-15977-2025 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

215

CRM-M-15977-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.08.2025

Manjot Singh @ Jotta ...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Ad v ocate with Mr. Raghav Chadha, Advoca t e for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Pu n jab.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

The instant one is the third p etition, which has been filed b y the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharati y a Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2 023 seeking g r ant of regular bail in case bea r ing FIR No. 55 dated 31.03.2 0 24, registered under Section 22 of the NDP S Act, 1985 and Section 25 o f the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Mahilpu r , District Hoshiarpur. The per v ious petitions, bearing number CRM-M-31012-2024 and CRM-M-64286-2024 , were dis m issed by this Court by passing detailed orders on 30.09.2024 and 13.01.202 5 , respectively. The operative p art of the order dated 30.09. 2 024 reads as u n der:

“6.The petitioner was a pprehended by the police part y on 31.03.2024 and reco v ery of 150 tablets of Etiron 0.5 having salt of Etizola m along with one country made pistol and 03 live cartridges w as effected from him. As per F SL report, the average weight of one tablet was 111

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.07 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-15977-2025 (O&M) -2-

milligrams, meaning t h ereby that the total weight o f the recovered intoxicant tablets was 111 x 150 =1 6 650 milligrams and if the same is converted into grams, it comes to 16.65 gram s . This substance finds mention at entry no. 238 ZZC o f the table specifying small and commercial quantities, as per which, the quantity gr e ater than 2.5 grams falls in commercial quantity and lesser t han 0.05 gram as small. H e nce, the rigors of Section 37 o f the NDPS Act would cert a inly apply in this case. As re g ards the arguments adva n ced by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to non-compliance of the stat u tory provisions of the Act during investigation by the p o lice party, the same have d irect bearing on the merits o f the case, which cannot be looked into at this stage w hile deciding a bail petitio n filed under Section 439 of Cr. P .C. There is nothing on re c ord to show that there would be any undue delay in conc l usion of trial. The apprehe n sion expressed by learned S tate counsel that if extended be n efit of bail, the petitioner may indulge in similar offe n ces, cannot be stated to b e unfounded. Keeping in view the discussion as made a bove, the quantity of recovered contraband, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner , the quantum of sentence w hich the conviction may entail and the attendant facts an d circumstances of the case, I a m of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be granted benefit o f regular bail, at this stage. H e nce, the petition is dismisse d .”

The only argument which ha s been raised by learned counse l for the petitio n er for grant of regular bail to t h e petitioner is that extended p e riod of incarce r ation has entitled the petitioner to be released on bail and there f ore, it is urged by him that the petition deserve s to be allowed.

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.07 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-15977-2025 (O&M)

-3-

Reply has been filed by th e respondent-State. It is argue d by learned St a te counsel that the previous pe t itions as filed by the petitioner w ere dismissed by passing detailed orders by this Court by taking into considerat i on the contentions raised by b o th sides. It is submitted that no new change in the circumstances has been poi n ted out. The mere extended p e riod of incarce r ation alone is not sufficient to g rant benefit of bail to the petiti o ner. The trial m ay be expedited. Therefore, i t is urged that the petition doe s not deserve to be allowed. 4. I have heard learned counsel f or the parties at considerable le n gth and have g one through the record carefull y . 5. The previous petitions filed b y the petitioner for grant of re g ular bail had b een dismissed vide order dated 30.09.2024 and 13.01.2025. The instant on e has been filed within a perio d of three months of the order d ated 13.01.202 5 . It is well settled propositio n of law that when successive bail applicatio n s come before the Court, the C ourt should be very cautious w hile consideri n g the same. Successive bail ap p lications can be entertained b y the Court wh e n some substantial change is e stablished by the accused the r eby making hi m entitled for grant of bail. Ref e rence in this regard can be ma d e to

State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 Supreme Court, 2292 , wherein it was observed so and it was further held that the Court should not pass an order of release of an accused on ba i l in successiv e bail application merely es t ablishing some cosmetic ch a nge between t i me gap of two applications. T here must be some drastic ch a nge during th e period between two applicati o ns. Reference can also be ma d e to

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.07 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-15977-2025 (O&M) -4-

Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another (2004) 7 SCC 528, wherein it was obser v ed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that where the offence alleged against an acc u sed is grave, bail cannot be gra n ted only on th e ground of long incarceration. 6. After hearing the contentions as raised by learned counsel fo r the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that no substantial or drastic ch a nge from the d ate of dismissal of the previou s petition as moved by the petiti o ner has been pointed out or made out from the pleas taken by the petiti o ner. Merely the extended/prolonged period o f incarceration is not a groun d to extend an y such benefit in such like cas e s. Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, in my considered o pinion, it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitio n er on bail, especially in view o f the fact that no drastic or mat e rial change in the circumstances has been ma d e out. In view of the discussion as made abo v e, but without meaning to mak e any comment on the merits o f the case, I a m of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve t o be allowed. H ence, the same is dismissed. 7. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are o nly for the p u rpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall n o t be construed as an expression of opinion on t h e merits of the case.

07.08.2025

Waseem Ansari

(MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE

Whe t her speaking/reasoned Whe t her reportable

Yes/No Yes/No

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.07 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document