A second anticipatory bail petition is untenable absent a subsequent change in circumstances.

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 0391 dated 13.07.2026, registered under Section 15(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat.

His earlier anticipatory-bail petition had been argued on merits and was thereafter withdrawn on the petitioner’s counsel’s statement that he was ready to surrender before the trial Court; the Court permitted withdrawal and directed that any subsequent regular-bail application be considered in accordance with law.

The petitioner subsequently filed the present second anticipatory-bail petition through a different counsel, alleging, inter alia, that he had not authorized the earlier statement regarding surrender.

The Court noted that no subsequent change in circumstances had occurred and that the petitioner had merely raised additional pleas through new counsel.

On merits, 1033 kg 970 grams of doda/chura post had allegedly been recovered from the co-accused driver of the petitioner’s vehicle. The petitioner was the owner of the vehicle, and the State relied on call-detail records, WhatsApp communications, and tower location placing him in District Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh, from where the contraband was allegedly loaded.

1. Whether a second petition for anticipatory bail is maintainable when the earlier petition was withdrawn after being argued on merits, without any subsequent change in circumstances.

2. Whether the petitioner could disown the statement made by his duly engaged counsel that he was ready to surrender before the trial Court.

3. Whether, considering the alleged commercial-quantity recovery, the petitioner’s ownership of the vehicle, and the investigative material against him, he was entitled to anticipatory bail.

The petition was considered under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail in an offence under Section 15(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

A successive bail petition seeking the same relief is ordinarily maintainable only upon a genuine subsequent change in circumstances; a change of counsel, improvement of pleadings, or advancement of arguments previously available does not constitute such a change.

A statement made by duly authorized counsel in judicial proceedings ordinarily binds the litigant and cannot be repudiated merely because its consequences later become inconvenient.

In deciding anticipatory bail, the Court must consider the nature and seriousness of the accusation, the material collected during investigation, the surrounding circumstances, and the conduct of the accused; the absence of personal recovery does not, by itself, create a right to anticipatory bail.

The Court held that the earlier petition was not withdrawn at the threshold but only after the State had filed its reply and the matter had been argued at length, when the Court was not inclined to grant relief.

Since there was no intervening change in circumstances, the petitioner could not re-agitate the same relief by changing counsel or supplementing the pleadings with arguments that were already available earlier.

The allegation that the earlier counsel lacked instructions was rejected as insufficient, particularly because the petitioner produced no material showing that the statement was unauthorized and had taken no action against the former counsel.

Independently on merits, the alleged recovery was of commercial quantity, and the petitioner’s ownership of the vehicle, communications with the co-accused, and location near the alleged loading point created substantial prima facie material requiring investigation.

These factors, coupled with the seriousness of narcotics transportation through a commercial vehicle, outweighed the petitioner’s submission that no recovery was to be made from him personally.

On merits also, the seriousness of the alleged commercial-quantity offence and the material connecting the petitioner with the transportation of contraband disentitled him to anticipatory bail.

The petition was dismissed, with the Court refraining from imposing the exemplary cost of ₹1,00,000 despite observing that the matter was a fit case for such costs.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the anticipatory-bail petition and would not constitute an opinion on the merits of the criminal case.