Point of Law : Principles of res judicata and such analogous principles although are not applicable in a criminal proceeding, still the courts are bound by the doctrine of judicial discipline having regarding to the hierarchical system prevailing in our country.

ORDER :

By way of instant petition, petitioner has sought bail in case FIR No. 14 of 2021, dated 27.03.2021, registered at Police Station Sainj, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act”).

2. Petitioner was arrested on 01.06.2021 in the above noted case on disclosure made by co-accused Dabe Ram.

3. Petitioner had earlier also filed Cr.MP(M) No. 1493 of 2021 before this Court for grant of bail in above noted case. However, the prayer made by petitioner was not granted.

4. In nutshell, the prosecution case is that on 27.03.2021, police party headed by HC Anupam Kumar No.13 had laid “Naka” at place Larji. At about 4.30 A.M, a vehicle bearing No. HP-24B-6994 (Tata Tigor) was stopped for checking. Another vehicle HP-24C-6968 (Pick-Up) followed and stopped behind the Tata Tigor car. Two person alighted from vehicle bearing No. HP-24B- 6994 and ran towards river. Vehicle HP-24C-6968 (Pickup) was occupied by its driver Vinod Kumar. On search of vehicle HP-24C-6968 “Charas” weighing 1 Kg and 555 grams was recovered. Vinod Kumar was arrested. As per his version, the recovered “Charas” belonged to Ram Krishan and Deep Ram @ Nittu, who were occupants of the car number HP-24B-6994.

5. Ram Krishan and Deep Ram alias Nittu were arrested on 30.03.2021. They disclosed that they had purchased the recovered contraband from Dabe Ram, who was also arrested on the same day. As per disclosure made by Dabe Ram, he had purchased the contraband from the bail petitioner on 26.03.2021. The bail petitioner was arrayed as accused and was arrested on 01.06.2021.

6. The instant successive bail application has been filed by petitioner on the ground that there is a change in circumstance which makes petitioner entitled for bail. As per petitioner mere existence of CDR revealing exchange of phone calls inter-se accused persons cannot be a ground to deny bail to the petitioner. In support of his case petitioner has placed reliance upon para-10 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and another, (2022) 2 Scale 14, which reads as under:-

“10. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. In the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the arrests made by the petitioner-NCB, on the basis of the confession/voluntary statements of the respondents or the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail. The CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of trial. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the orders dated 16th September, 2019, 14th January, 2020, 16th January, 2020, 19th December, 2019 and 20th January, 2020, passed in SLP (Crl.) No@ Diary No. 22702/2020, SLP(Crl.) No. 1454/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1465/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1773-74/2021and SLP (Crl.) No. 2080/2021 respectively. The impugned orders are accordingly, upheld and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the petitioner-NCB seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respective respondents, are dismissed as meritless.”

7. I have heard Shri Bhupender Ahuja Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Desh Raj Thakur learned Additional Advocate General for the State and have also gone through the record. 8. This Court while rejecting the bail application i.e. Cr.MP(M) No. 1493 of 2021 on 24.09.2021, held as under:-

“17. Coming to the facts of the case no credible explanation has been given by petitioner regarding her repeated conversation with wife of Dabey Ram on 26th and 27th March, 2021. Nothing has been placed on record to suggest that there was some pendi