A second plea for successive bail in an NDPS case has failed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which held that “mere prolongation of custody”, here a little over seven and a half months with nothing else new, is not a substantial change in circumstances.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Chandigarh: Refusing successive bail to an accused in a Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) case involving a commercial quantity of psychotropic tablets, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a longer stay in custody is not a ground to reconsider a plea already rejected on merits [Harsh Kumar v. Union of India].
Justice Sumeet Goel passed the order on October 7, 2026 on a petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The allegations against the petitioner are untested, the Court has expressed no opinion on the merits, and the presumption of innocence continues to apply.
The test for a second bail plea
Relying on its earlier decision in Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana (2024:PHHC:054064), the Court reiterated that a second or successive bail petition is maintainable, but only if the accused shows a substantial change in circumstances. Applying that test, it said:
mere prolongation of custody, in the absence of any other supervening circumstance
was not enough. The only change since the first petition was dismissed, the Court recorded, was further incarceration of more than seven and a half months, and that, set against the nature and quantity of the contraband alleged to have been recovered, did not warrant interference.
Where the case stood
The petitioner is an accused in NCB Crime Case No. 51 dated December 8, 2024, registered at Police Station NCB Amritsar under Sections 8, 22, 29, 61 and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution alleges recovery of a commercial quantity of tablets containing Alprazolam, Tramadol and Zolpidem Tartrate.
He has been in custody since January 3, 2025. His first regular bail plea was dismissed on merits on February 11, 2026, and the Supreme Court dismissed as withdrawn his Special Leave Petition against that order, SLP (Crl.) No. 5411 of 2026, on May 29, 2026.
The two sides
For the petitioner, it was argued that he had been in custody since January 2025, that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not scrupulously followed, and that the trial was not moving expeditiously. He said he was implicated on the disclosure statement of co-accused Sonu Singh, which he called inadmissible, that no prosecution witness had been examined and that nothing remained to be recovered from him.
The NCB opposed the plea on the strength of the commercial quantity and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, arguing that the petitioner could abscond or interfere with witnesses if released.
The outcome
Since the first dismissal and the withdrawal of the Special Leave Petition, the Court found no fresh or supervening circumstance. It treated the plea as a repeat attempt on substantially the same facts and grounds, and dismissed the petition. Its observations, it clarified, are not an opinion on the merits of the case.
What the order shows
In NDPS prosecutions, where the statutory bar in Section 37 makes a first refusal hard to dislodge, successive pleas are common. The order shows how the High Court applies the substantial change test: time spent in custody is weighed against the quantity and nature of the contraband, and by itself it does not reopen a plea already decided on merits.
The decision turns on the facts before the Court. The charges remain allegations that will be tested at trial, and nothing in the order is a finding on guilt.
Case Title: Harsh Kumar v. Union of India (NCB) [CRM-M-42736-2026]
Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel, Punjab and Haryana High Court
Date of Order: October 7, 2026
Appearances: Not stated in the order