Pending NDPS antecedents and absence of fresh grounds justify rejection of second bail application.

On April 22, 2025, police conducted a raid near Shivnath River based on a tip-off and recovered 76.69 grams of Heroin (Chitta) from three individuals

Subsequent investigation and statements recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act implicated the applicant, Harpal Singh, leading to his arrest on April 25, 2025

The applicant was charged under Sections 21(A), 22(A), and 27(A) of the NDPS Act

The applicant’s first bail application (MCRC No. 8839/2025) was rejected on merits by the High Court on November 6, 2025, primarily due to a pending criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act

The applicant moved this second bail application on the grounds that four co-accused had since been granted bail, charges were framed on January 5, 2026, and he had been in custody for nearly a year

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, on the grounds of parity with co-accused and the progress of the trial

2. Whether the present second bail application discloses any new grounds or change in circumstances sufficient to entertain the plea after a prior rejection on merits

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail

The substantive charges were under Sections 21(A), 22(A), and 27(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985

The court followed the judicial principle that a second bail application cannot be entertained following a rejection on merits unless there is a significant change in circumstances or the emergence of new legal grounds

The Court evaluated the applicant's plea for parity, noting that while co-accused Lavprit Singh, Vikramjeet Singh, Vishal Singh, and Atul Kumar had been granted bail, the applicant's personal record was distinct

The State contended that the applicant is a habitual offender with a pending case under the NDPS Act, a factor that had led to the dismissal of his first bail application

The Court reasoned that the framing of charges and the release of co-accused did not negate the applicant's criminal history or the merits upon which the previous rejection was based

Consequently, the Court found that the applicant failed to raise any "new ground" that would justify reversing its earlier stance

The Court held that in the absence of new grounds, a second application following a merit-based rejection cannot be entertained, especially when the applicant possesses a criminal antecedent under the same Act

The trial court was directed to be informed of the order for necessary compliance