The main legal point established in the judgment is that the discretion for the grant of bail in non-bailable offences should be based on well-founded legal principles and not swayed by sentiments or discrimination based on place of residence.

ORDER :

M.K. Hanjura, J.

1. On 26.06.2018, a police patrol party during a routine checking found a person carrying a bag in his hands. He was asked to stop but he tried to give them a slip. He was chased and apprehended. During the search of the bag, poppy straw, weighing 9 Kgs was recovered from it as a consequence of which offences under Section 08/15 NDPS Act, were found to have been committed by the accused and, accordingly, a case bearing FIR No. 50/2018 was registered against him for the commission of the aforesaid offences at police station, Pantha Chowk, Srinagar, with which the investigation ensued. The accused was arrested on the same day. The samples of the Poppy straw were taken. These were sent to J & K Forensic Science Laboratory, Srinagar, for examination and analysis. The statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts of the case were recorded and the site plan was also prepared. On the completion of the investigation of the case, a charge sheet in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. was laid against the accused/applicant before the Court of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar.

2. The applicant filed an application for the grant of bail in his favour in the FIR aforesaid before the Court of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, which came to be rejected by an order dated 23.07.2018. Aggrieved by this order, the applicant filed another application before this Court for the grant of bail in his favour inter-alia, on the grounds, that the charge-sheet has been laid against him before the competent court, wherein the police authorities have concluded that he is involved in the commission of offences U/s. 8/15 NDPS Act. The applicant has further stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. The mandatory provision of the NDPS Act have been violated in the case with impunity and, therefore, the detention of the applicant is illegal and unjustified. It has also been averred that the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, does not apply to the case on hand. He has been in the custody for the last more than three months by now and his continued detention has hampered him from proving his innocence. A small quantity of Narcotics has been recovered from his possession. He will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will abide by the conditions whatsoever are imposed on him, in case he is admitted to bail. In the premises, the applicant urged that he be admitted to bail for the commission of the aforesaid offences.

3. The respondents have resisted and controverted the application of the applicant chiefly on the grounds that poppy Straw was recovered from the possession of the applicant. The applicant has committed a heinous offence. The menace of the drugs has eaten into the vitals of the society. It is a crime against the society and the societal concerns have to be guarded with zeal and zest. The motion so preferred by the applicant seeking admission to bail in relation to the above referred crime is devoid of any merit and, as such, the same deserves to be rejected.

4. Heard and considered.

5. Risking repetition, what requires to be repeated and reiterated here is that the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, has rejected the bail application of the applicant. The question, therefore, that arises for consideration at first is whether a successive application for bail will or will not lie before this court. The law evolved on the subject is that the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and the High Court to consider an application for the grant of bail is concurrent. If the Sessions Court has rejected an application for bail, the High Court can consider the prayer afresh particularly when the order of the rejection of the bail is bad and perverse on the face of it. Resort can in this behalf be had from the law laid down in AIR 1978 SC page 179 wherein it has been held as under:-

"17. It is significant to note that under S. 397, Cr. PC, of the new code while the High Court a