JUDGMENT :

BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nirav P. Pandya for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Soni for the respondent-State through video conference.

2. This is a successive bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure in connection with First Information Report being CR No. I-1/2019 registered with ATS Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23(c), 25, 29 and 32(b)(e)(f) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (For Short "the NDPS Act").

3. Criminal Misc. Application No. 8431/2020 preferred by the applicant earlier was withdrawn by the applicant and therefore, the same was disposed of by order dated 14th August, 2020 as withdrawn.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant Mr. Pandya has again made submissions on merits of the matter without pointing out the change of circumstances, except for stating that the trial is still pending before the Court below. It was submitted that the petitioner has been arrested in view of call details obtained by the prosecution with regard to his talk with accused no. 12-Haji Nadar who is absconding. On perusal of the FIR, it is revealed that ATS police station, Ahmedabad filed the FIR being CR No. I-1/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23(c), 25, 29 and 32(b)(e)(f) of the NDPS Act and after conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet is already filed.

5. It was submitted by learned advocate Mr. Pandya that the applicant is a reputed person in the society doing job in Mumbai. However, as per the details in the charge-sheet, the applicant is doing the business of supplying waiters in hotel.

6. It also appears from the charge-sheet that on 27th March, 2019 raid was conducted and accused no. 1 to 9 were arrested for possessing banned substance of heroin in commercial quantity. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested from Mumbai on 13th April, 2019 by the ATS and his house at Delhi was raided where substance of Methamphetamine of 4918 grams of value of Rs. 24.59 crores was seized. According to the learned advocate Mr. Pandya, house which was raided by the ATS being House No. 410, Second Floor, Pahadganj, New Delhi did not belong to the applicant and there is nothing on record to show the occupation of the said house by the applicant.

7. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Soni submitted that the applicant is accused for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23(c), 25, 29 and 32(b)(e)(f) of the NDPS Act and considering the provisions of section 53A and 54 of the NDPS Act, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. It was submitted that the main accused persons are absconding who were in touch with the applicant and if the applicant is released on bail, there is likelihood that the applicant would again commit such offences. It was also pointed out that the applicant is part of conspiracy to import Heroin in Gujarat and therefore, the applicant should not be enlarged on bail.

8. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the charge-sheet papers produced on record, it appears that the applicant is arrested for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23(c), 25, 29 and 32(b)(e)(f) of the NDPS Act. The applicant has already withdrawn earlier bail application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 8431/2020 vide order dated 14th August, 2020 and thereafter, there is no change of circumstances which would enable this Court to consider the case again on merits to grant regular bail to the applicant for the offences for which he is arrested.

9. The Apex Court as well as this Court in the following cases have held that no successive bail application can be entertained by the High Court, in absence of any change of circumstances:

(1) Shyamdutt Upadhyay and Another v. State of Gujarat reported in 1992(1) GLH 259

"4. When a Court is not inclined to grant