Successive Bail Is Not A Matter Of Right – Filing Of Chargesheet Doesn’t Dilute Seriousness Of NDPS Offence: Gujarat High Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Accused With 14 Criminal Antecedents

Court Cannot Be Taken For Granted With Repeated Bail Pleas In Absence Of Change In Circumstances” – In a significant judgment Gujarat High Court, presided by Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar, dismissed a successive regular bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in a narcotics case. The applicant was arrested for the alleged possession of 9.982 kg of ganja under Sections 8(C), 20(B)(ii)(b), and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

The Court emphatically held that there was no change in circumstances to entertain a successive bail plea after the applicant had earlier withdrawn a similar application with liberty to approach again only if the trial faced delays — which was not the case.

“An Applicant Cannot Treat the Court as a Bail Granting Machine” – High Court Slams Misuse of Successive Bail Provision

Observing the growing tendency of filing successive bail applications without any change in circumstances, the Court remarked:

“It is required to be mentioned that the applicant may file successive bail application, but it does not mean that the Court is taken for granted as and when bail application is preferred, it should be allowed.”

The Court further reiterated the legal position that the filing of a charge sheet does not amount to a change in circumstance to justify a fresh bail plea, especially in serious NDPS offences.

“Possession Is Not Merely Physical – Knowledge And Control With Animus Constitutes Conscious Possession” – Court Relies On Supreme Court Precedent

Rejecting the applicant’s argument that the contraband was not found in his “personal possession”, the Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Union of India v. Md. Nawaz Khan, (2021) 10 SCC 100, clarifying that:

“Possession means not just physical custody but also dominion, control, and knowledge with animus possidendi. The contraband was concealed within the knowledge and control of the petitioner.”

Hence, the plea of non-possession was outrightly dismissed.

“Bail Cannot Be Granted Solely On The Ground That Co-Accused Are Released – Role Of Each Accused Must Be Examined” – Court Distinguishes Parity Argument

The Court refused the plea for parity with two co-accused who had been granted bail, stating:

“The role of the present accused is distinct and graver. He is the principal offender involved in procuring and supplying the contraband, whereas the co-accused were merely drivers or helpers.”

Further, the Court noted that the applicant has a long criminal history of 14 prior cases, including two NDPS offences, which fundamentally distinguishes his role from the co-accused.

“Mere Passage of Time Or Filing of Charge Sheet Is Not A Change In Circumstance” – High Court Upholds Apex Court Rulings On Successive Bail

Referring to the Supreme Court’s rulings in Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of Karnataka (2017) 5 SCC 406 and Navin Singh v. State of U.P. (2021) 2 SCC (Cri.) 809, the Court underscored:

“Filing of the charge sheet does not dilute the seriousness of the allegations. The onus is on the Court to consider the grounds on which earlier bail was denied, and unless fresh grounds arise, a successive bail plea cannot be entertained.”

Quoting the apex court, the judge noted: “The accused has a right to make successive applications for bail, but while entertaining such applications, it is the duty of the Court to consider whether there is any change in circumstances that justifies a different view from the earlier one.”

“Concept Of Liberty Is Not Absolute – No One Has Right To Jeopardize Life And Safety Of Society” – Court Stresses On Public Interest

Relying upon Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Court reiterated:

“Liberty is not an absolute right. No element in society can act in a manner that jeopardizes the life or liberty of others.”

Given the applicant’s history of repeat offences, the Court observed that there exists a real risk of the applicant engaging in further offences if released on bail.

“Court Cannot Ignore The Pattern Of Misuse Of Bail By Repeat Offenders” – Previous Misconduct Weighs Against Bail

Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar emphasized that whenever the applicant was previously released on bail, he had misused the liberty by engaging in further criminal activities, including narcotics offences.

“Whenever the applicant was released on bail, he misused his liberty and committed similar offences. This Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.”

Bail Application Dismissed; Trial To Be Expedited

In view of the seriousness of the offence, the quantity of contraband (9.982 kg ganja), the applicant’s significant criminal antecedents (14 prior cases), and absence of any change in circumstance, the Court dismissed the successive bail plea, holding:

“The present successive bail application stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.”

The Court further directed the Trial Court to:

• “Expedite the trial on a day-to-day basis.”

• “Ensure that legal aid is provided to the applicant if he fails to engage a private advocate.”

Date of Decision: 30 June 2025