Successive bail applications require a change in circumstances; habitual offenders under the NDPS Act face stricter scrutiny for bail.

ORDER :

(M.R. MENGDEY, J.)

1. The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhit, 2023, for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.NO. 11212051211014 of 2021 registered with Surat Railway Police Station, Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C) , 20(b)(ii) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

2. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 01.05.2024 and since then the he is in custody. Earlier, the applicant had preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.23808 of 2024, which was allowed to be withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 06.12.2024 and since thereafter, there is no progress in the trial, the applicant has preferred the present application.

2.1 Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the quantity of contraband substance involved in the present offence is an intermediate quantity, and therefore, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be applicable to the present case.

2.2 Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the only role attributed to the present applicant is to the effect that the present applicant had supplied the stock of contraband substance of Ganja, which had been recovered from the other co- accused. However, except the statement of the co-accused, there is no material connecting the present applicant with the offence in question. He, therefore, submitted to allow the present application and enlarge the present applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions.

3. Learned APP for the respondent-State has opposed the present application, inter alia, contending that the present being a successive bail application filed by the present applicant, there being no change in circumstances after the withdrawal of the earlier bail application filed by the present applicant, the present application is not maintainable. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present application.

4. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the material available on record. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the present offence came to be registered on 28.08.2021, whereas the applicant came to be arrested in connection with the present offence on 01.05.2024. Thus, after the registration of the present offence, till 01.05.2024, the applicant had absconded and could be apprehended only after the period of almost 3 years from the date of registration of the present FIR.

5. The applicant herein had earlier preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.16251 of 2024, which was allowed to be withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 21.08.2024 since this Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the present applicant. Thereafter, the applicant had preferred another application being Criminal Misc. Application No.23808 of 2024, which was again allowed to be withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 06.12.2024 since this Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the present applicant. Thereafter, the applicant has preferred the present application. This is the 3^rd successive bail application filed by the present applicant in connection with the present offence. Learned advocate for the applicant is not in a position to show any change in circumstances after the withdrawal of the earlier application. On the contrary, it is sought to be contended that there has been no progress in the trial after the withdrawal of the application. At the cost of repetation, it is required to be noted that in an offence, which was registered in the Year-2021, the applicant came to be arrested only on 01.05.2024, and thereafter, within the short span of 10 months, the present is the 3^rd successive bail application filed by the present applicant.

6. So far as the aspect of merits is concerned, it is the case of prosecution that the other co-accused was found in conscious possession of contraband substance of Ganja worth 10.268 kg. The substance was allegedly