The Punjab and Haryana High Court has affirmed that a second petition for regular bail is legally maintainable when prolonged custody and persistent trial delays undermine the principle that bail is the rule and incarceration the exception. This ruling reinforces judicial discretion in balancing individual liberty against procedural delays in serious drug offences.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sukhpreet Singh @ Sukh, is accused in FIR No. 385 dated 22.12.2023 registered at Police Station Special Task Force, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), under Sections 21, 21(b), 21(c), 27 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution alleges that 810 grams of heroin were recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and his co-accused.
Key Facts
- The petitioner has been in continuous judicial custody since his arrest in December 2023.
- As of the hearing date on 30.03.2026, he has spent over two years in custody without trial conclusion.
- Charges have been framed, but out of 20 cited witnesses, only 2 have been examined and 8 have been given up.
- The trial has suffered repeated adjournments due to non-appearance of prosecution witnesses (police officials), despite bailable warrants being issued.
- Jail authorities also failed to produce the petitioner before the trial court on multiple occasions.
- The petitioner filed a prior bail petition (CRM-M-17063-2025), which was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.05.2025.
Procedural History
- 22.12.2023: FIR registered under NDPS Act, 1985.
- December 2023: Petitioner taken into custody.
- 15.05.2025: First bail petition (CRM-M-17063-2025) dismissed as withdrawn.
- 30.03.2026: Second bail petition (CRM-M-865-2026) filed under Section 483 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- 30.03.2026: Hearing conducted; trial court’s zimini orders submitted and examined.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought regular bail on grounds of excessive pre-trial detention, non-progression of trial, and violation of the right to speedy trial.
The Legal Issue
Can a second petition for regular bail be entertained under Section 483 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 when the prior petition was withdrawn, and the primary ground is prolonged custody coupled with trial delay?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the petitioner has been in custody for over two years without meaningful trial progress. He highlighted that only two of twenty witnesses have been examined, eight have been abandoned, and prosecution witnesses repeatedly failed to appear despite bailable warrants. He submitted that the trial court’s failure to ensure production of the accused and witnesses constitutes a systemic delay violating the petitioner’s fundamental rights. He relied on Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana to establish that successive bail petitions are maintainable if substantial change in circumstances is demonstrated.
For the Respondent
The State opposed the petition, asserting the petitioner’s active role in the commission of a serious drug offence involving 810 grams of heroin. It contended that the gravity of the offence and the nature of evidence warranted continued custody. The State filed a custody certificate confirming the duration of detention but did not dispute the procedural delays.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged that the petitioner’s custody has exceeded two years, with no realistic prospect of trial conclusion in the near future. It noted that the trial’s stagnation is not attributable to the petitioner but to the non-appearance of prosecution witnesses and failure of jail authorities to produce him. The Court emphasized that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and prolonged incarceration without trial progress violates the spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution.
"The continuous incarceration of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice."
The Court further held that a second bail petition is not per se maintainable merely because it is successive. However, where there is a substantial change in circumstances - such as extended custody and demonstrable trial delay - the court must exercise judicial discretion to reconsider bail. It cited its own judgment in Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana to affirm five key principles: (1) successive bail petitions are legally maintainable; (2) maintainability is not barred even if the prior petition was withdrawn; (3) a substantial change in circumstances must be shown; (4) no exhaustive list of such changes can be prescribed; and (5) the court must record cogent reasons for granting such relief.
The Court found that the petitioner met this threshold: the duration of custody had increased significantly since the first petition, and the trial’s pace had deteriorated further. The Court explicitly declined to express any opinion on the merits of the case or the veracity of the allegations.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 5,00,000 with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court or duty magistrate. The State may seek cancellation of bail if the petitioner is involved in any other criminal activity while on bail. The Court directed compliance within seven days of the order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Second Bail Petitions Are Not Barred by Prior Withdrawal
- Practitioners may file successive bail petitions even if the first was withdrawn, dismissed for non-prosecution, or rejected on merits.
- The key is demonstrating a substantial change in circumstances - not a mere repetition of earlier arguments.
Trial Delay Alone Can Justify Bail in Serious Offences
- In NDPS and other serious cases, prolonged pre-trial detention without trial progress can outweigh the gravity of the offence.
- Courts must scrutinize the reasons for delay: non-appearance of witnesses, administrative failures, and court backlogs are relevant factors.
Judicial Discretion Must Be Reasoned and Transparent
-
Courts granting successive bail must record clear, lucid reasons explaining why the change in circumstances is substantial.
-
Vague references to "delay" are insufficient; specific instances of adjournments, non-appearances, and custodial duration must be cited.
-
Always check the status of trial progress before filing a second bail petition.
-
Collect and annex zimini orders, witness examination records, and custody certificates to substantiate delay.
-
Cite Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana as binding precedent on successive bail maintainability in Punjab & Haryana jurisdiction.
