1. The present second petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Sanhita,, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'the BNSS') seeking pre-arrest/anticipatory arrest/anticipatory bail in FIR No.89 dated 14.07.2022 registered under Sections 18(c) & 29 of the NDPS Act (added later on) at Police Station Khamano Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out by the petitioner in the present petition) is as follows:

3. The petitioner had earlier applied for grant of pre-

pre arrest/anticipatory bail before this Court which was dismissed on 07.09.2022. The relevant part of said order reads as under:-

Thereafter, the present petition (i.e. i.e. the second petition for grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest anticipatory/pre bail) has been preferred by the petitioner on 13.01.2025 13.01.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused accused namely Rajwinder Singh @ Rajji, under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, Act, who has already been extended the concession of regular bail by 3 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 18-01-2025 15:17:11 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005875 CRM-M--1880-2025 4 this Court vide order order dated 22.08.2024 (Annexure P P-7).. Apart from this disclosure, there is no other evidence to substantiate the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. Learned counsel has further iterated that the disclosure statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act by a police officer is inadmissible as evidence. To buttress his argument, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Appeal No.152 of 2013, decided on 29.10.2020) wherein it was unequivocally held that a confession made to a police officer cannot be used as evidence against an accused person. Learned counsel further asserts that the petitioner was granted interim bail by the learned Special Ju Judge, dge, Fatehgarh Sahib.

However, when the petitioner joined the investigation as directed, the investigating officer forcibly obtained his signature on a statement under Section on 27 of the Indian Evidence Act , which is wholly illegal. Learned counsel further further asserts that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in a baseless and frivolous case. It has been further argued that there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner, as nothing incriminating remains to be recovered from him. Moreover, Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice in case he is enlarged on pre pre-arrest arrest bail.

5. On the strength of advance notice, Mr. Yuvraj Singh, AAG Punjab has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent respondent-State. He has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on account of the present petition, being non maintainable, as it is the second petition for grant of anticipatory bail. Learned State counsel has further 4 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 18-01-2025 15:17:11 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005875 CRM-M--1880-2025 5 submitted that the first petition petition was dismissed on merits on 07.09.2022 and neither any prayer was made nor any liberty was granted therein to the petitioner to file afresh. Accordingly, the learned State counsel has argued that the instant petition deserves dismissal on this score alone. Opposing the plea on merits, learned State counsel has submitted that the FIR in question pertains to recovery of 05 kilograms of opium which falls under the category of "commercial quantity" and, therefore, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS, 1985 985 is attracted.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

7. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in Bhisham Singh vs. State of Haryana , 2024:P 2024:PHHC:048105 HHC:048105;

relevant whereof reads as under:-

Once there is no statutory prohibition provided for in law, a Court is not logically empowered to import into it such prohibitions especially in case of codified and legislated gislated law. It is trite law that Courts ought not to read a provision in codified law which has not been specifically provided for by the legislature especially when such reading results into deprivation of rights. 10.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Babu Singh case (supra) has held that rejection of a bail petition does not, by itself, forbid a Court 5 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 18-01-2025 15:17:11 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005875 CRM-M--1880-2025 6 from considering another one later in point of time. It can be safely inferred that the decision of a Court qua bail petition (whether regular bail ppetition etition or anticipatory bail petition) is essentially an interlocutory order and hence the concept of res judicata does not apply. Almost all the Hon'ble High Courts have enunciated the view that second/successive plea(s) for grant of anticipatory bail is maintainable albeit with some circumspection and material change of circumstance(s) being a prime requirement. The full bench of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Ganesh Raj case (supra), the full bench of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sri Sudip Sen case (supra), the division bench of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of K.Gajendra Naidu case (supra), the division bench of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Imratlal Vishwakarma case (supra) and the division bench of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in case of Runu Roy case (supra) have, inexorably, echoed this exposition. 10.3 Judicial experience indicates that, more often than not, an attempt is made by the non-applicant applicant i.e. the State/complainant/victim to differentiate between the situations wherein first/earlier anticipatory bail petition has been dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed vis-à-vis where the earlier petition has been dismissed on merits thereof. In other words, it is canvassed that where the first/earlierr petition has been dismissed as withdrawn, that the petitioner/applicant-accused accused has given up on his right(s) and hence subsequent anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rani Dudeja case (supra) has held that the second anticipatory bail would be maintainable even in case wherein earlier one was dismissed as withdrawn. A division bench of this Court, while answering a reference in this regard, has held in case of Manjinder Kaur case (supra) that the second anticipatory cipatory bail petition would be maintainable wherein the first one has been dismissed as withdrawn. To the similar effect is the ratio decidendi of a division bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Imratlal case (supra). Hence, this seeming conu conundrum ndrum stands set at naught.

Accordingly, it is ineluctable that the second/successive petition(s) for grant of anticipatory bail is maintainable even when the first/earlier one was dismissed as withdrawn.

10.4 The issue that next craves attention is as to what are the factors/parameters for consideration of second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s). The concordant view of all the Hon'ble High Courts is that the essential prerequisite for consideration of second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s)) is material/substantial change in circumstances, unearthing of substantial new material and other factors of akin nature. The Hon'ble 6 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 18-01-2025 15:17:11 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005875 CRM-M--1880-2025 7 Supreme Court in case of G.R. Ananda Babu case (supra) has enunciated that specious reason of change in circumstances ca cannot nnot be relied upon for invoking successive anticipatory bail petition(s). Accordingly, the new grounds pleaded/change in circumstances ought to be substantial in nature. 10.5 No rigid or universal criteria can possibly be delineated to conclusively govern the exercise of judicial discretion, in determining, as to what would constitute as the above stated substantial change in circumstances. Factual flexibility, one additional or different fact, may make a sea of difference between two cases. There is no ga gainsaying insaying that each case has its own distinct and unique facts and, hence, exercise of such judicial power is best left to the judicial discretion of a Court in accordance with the settled norms of our jurisprudence.

11. As an epilogue to the above rumina rumination, tion, the following principles emerge:

III For the second/successive anticip anticipatory atory bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice.

would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Accordingly, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive ive anticipatory bail petition(s).

V In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s).

tion(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed.

VI Once a plea for anticipatory bail has been dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non non-prosecution prosecution or 7 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 18-01-2025 15:17:11 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005875 CRM-M--1880-2025 8 dismissed on merits by the High Court, no second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) shall be entertained by a Sessions Court."

8. Indubitably, the he first petition (for grant of anticipatory bail) preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 07.09.2022.. The contention(s) raised on behalf of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused accused and the nature/seriousness of allegations allegations, were considered at that time and thereafter the said petition was dismissed. Thereafter, in the instant petition i.e. second petition (for grant of anticipatory bbail), ail), the petitioner has reiterated the grounds previously taken (at the time of rejection of the first petition on 07.09.2022)) except for the ground that the co co-accused namely Rajwinder Singh has been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide ide order dated 22.08.2024 (Annexure P P-7). It is not in dispute that the co-accused accused of the petitioner has voluntarily subjected himself to the legal process and suffered incarceration for a period exceeding 02 years. In contrast, the petitioner has willfully willfully evaded his arrest and failed to submit to the process of law till now. Such conduct demonstrates a clear disregard for the judicial process and constitutes a compelling ground to deny the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The prolonged ev evasion asion of the petitioner weighs heavily against the exercise of discretion in his favour under the provisions governing anticipatory bail. Furthermore, the first petition was dismissed on 07.09.2022 and the instant petition has been preferred after a gap off more than 2½ years. It is evident that the petitioner has evaded the process of law for over 2½ years. The conduct of the petitioner in avoiding arrest for such a prolonged period without any reasonable cause must be 8 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 18-01-2025 15:17:11 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005875 CRM-M--1880-2025 9 considered while adjudicating this second petition. Process of justice is meant to treat every individual in a manner which is equitable and fair.

However; if the petitioner-accused petitioner accused chooses to employ irregular and convoluted tactics, including undue delay, strategically aimed at frustrating frustratin the lawful proceedings/investigation, it tantamount tantamounts to an abuse of the process of justice. While liberty and dignity of an individual must be held high, however, no one can be permitted to subvert and cause devolution in the process of justice. Protracted Protracted absence, eluding the process of law and abrupt repetition of pleas for pre-arrest pre arrest bail, in absence of convincing reason(s) is certainly not an act/behaviour which calls for sympathy/indulgence of the Court. The hiatus of more than 2½ years on part of the petitioner (herein) is inexplicable nay contumacious. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner when examined in the backdrop of the nature/severity of allegations made against the petitioner, dis dis-entitles entitles him for grant of anticipatory bail.

9. Furthermore, noo fresh substantial change in circumstance circumstances has been brought forward which would indicate that the petitioner is entitled to maintain his second petition for grant of anticipatory bail. All the grounds urged by the petitioner in the present peti petition have already been considered & decided and view thereupon has been taken vide judgment dated 07.09.2022. From the entire factual conspectus brought forward in the present petition, no fresh ground or circumstance is made out so as to enable the petitioner petitioner to file and maintain the second anticipatory bail petition.

Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be dismissed on merits thereof as well.

9 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 18-01-2025 15:17:11 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005875 CRM-M--1880-2025 10

10. Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on merits of the case and the investigating agency as also the trial Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced with this order.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE January 16, 16 2025 Ajay Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 10 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 18-01-2025 15:17:11 :::