The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a second plea for regular bail filed by Harsh Kumar in an NDPS case concerning the alleged recovery of a commercial quantity of psychotropic substances. Justice Sumeet Goel held that merely spending additional time in custody, without any substantial change in circumstances, was insufficient to revisit the earlier bail decision.
The petition arose from NCB Crime Case No. 51 dated December 8, 2024, registered at NCB Police Station, Amritsar, under Sections 8, 22, 29, 61 and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. According to the prosecution case, the matter concerns recovery of 1,37,11,610 tablets containing Alprazolam, Tramadol and Zolpidem Tartrate, described as commercial quantity contraband.
The petitioner had earlier sought regular bail, but the plea was rejected on merits on February 11, 2026. His challenge before the Supreme Court was subsequently withdrawn on May 29, 2026. In the present petition, he relied on his continued incarceration, the alleged procedural lapses under the NDPS Act and the fact that the trial had not progressed substantially.
The High Court noted that a successive bail application can be considered when there is a substantial or material change in circumstances. However, the Court found that the grounds raised in the second petition were substantially the same as those considered earlier.
Justice Sumeet Goel observed:
“The only changed circumstance(s), after dismissal of the previous bail plea of the petitioner by this Court and the subsequent withdrawal of SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is that the petitioner has suffered further incarceration for a period of more than 07½ months from the date of dismissal of previous bail plea by this Court.”
The Court further held that the additional period spent in custody, considered alongside the nature and quantity of the alleged contraband, did not constitute a sufficient ground for reconsidering the earlier decision. It found no fresh factual or legal circumstance that justified taking a different view.
Finding no fresh or supervening circumstance after rejection of the earlier bail plea, the High Court concluded that the case was not fit for grant of regular bail. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The Court clarified that its observations would not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the main case.
Case Title: Harsh Kumar v. Union of India Narcotics Control Bureau
Case Number: CRM-M-42736-2026
Judge: Justice Sumeet Goel
Decision Date: October 7, 2026
