A successive bail application cannot be reconsidered absent fresh material after a coordinate bench has rejected bail.

Police recovered 54 packets of dry ganja, weighing approximately 219 kg, from a Tata Punch parked beside a school.

A case was registered under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985; the prosecution alleged that Partha Das owned the vehicle.

The investigating officer charge-sheeted him as an absconder.

After he appeared on summons, the Special Judge rejected his bail application; a coordinate Bench of the High Court also rejected bail on 31 July 2026, applying the Section 37 bar and noting the vehicle’s allegedly false number plates and other identifying materials.

Partha Das sought bail again, arguing, among other things, that the prior order wrongly referred to another case against him and that Tarsem Lal supported his release.

Whether the accused’s renewed bail application could be reconsidered in the absence of fresh material after a coordinate Bench had rejected bail on the same subject matter.

Whether the accused was entitled to bail on the basis of the summons procedure and the principles in Tarsem Lal, notwithstanding the alleged commercial quantity and the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Whether the circumstances of the alleged recovery from the vehicle warranted a different conclusion on bail in light of Biswajit Dey v. State of Assam.

Section 483(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers the High Court to consider bail; however, for offences involving a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, Section 37 imposes stringent restrictions on bail.

The Court considered Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar Zonal Office, AIR 2024 SC 2512, but noted that the coordinate Bench had already considered that decision in rejecting the earlier application.

It also applied the four broad conveyance-recovery scenarios identified in Biswajit Dey v. State of Assam, (2025) 3 SCC 241, concerning when a vehicle’s owner or agent may be arrayed as an accused following recovery of contraband from a vehicle.

A successive bail application on the same subject matter, without fresh material warranting reconsideration, cannot be used to reopen the earlier decision of a coordinate Bench.

The High Court held that the coordinate Bench had already considered the relevant prosecution materials, the commercial quantity, the vehicle evidence and Tarsem Lal when rejecting the earlier bail application.

Although the prosecution had not established that another case was pending against the accused, that did not displace the other grounds of the prior decision; the accused had not challenged that order or produced fresh material justifying reconsideration.

The Court also considered the recovery circumstances against the principles in Biswajit Dey and found no basis, at that stage, to draw an adverse presumption against the prosecution.

The accused was to remain in judicial custody, and the record was to be returned to the trial court.