ORDER :

Sanjay Dhar, J.-The petitioner has filed the instant application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail in case FIR No.132/2021 for offences under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act registered with Police Station, Kangan.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 08.11.2021, Police Station, Kangan, received information from reliable sources that a person, namely, Mushtaq Ahmad Bajard, is illegally selling charas and bangpatri to the younger generation of the area and has hidden the said contraband substance on the roof top of his house. Upon receipt of this information, police party and Executive Magistrate, 1st Class, Kangan, reached the spot where they seized 140 grams of charas like substance and 06 kgs of bangpatri. Accordingly, case FIR No.132/2021 for offences under Section 8/20 NDPS Act was registered and investigation was set into motion. During the course of investigation, site plan was prepared, statements of witnesses were recorded and samples of contraband seized and sealed in presence of the Executive Magistrate on spot were sent to FSL, Srinagar, for expert opinion.

3. After investigation of the case, offences under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act were found established against petitioner/accused and charge sheet was laid before the trial court on 02.02.2022.

4. It appears that the petitioner had filed an application for grant of bail in his favour in the aforesaid FIR before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Ganderbal, and the same was rejected by the Court vide order dated 27.12.2021. Being aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner has filed the instant petitions before this Court for grant of bail in his favour on the grounds that quantity of contraband that is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner falls in intermediate quantity; that the learned trial court while rejecting the bail petition of the petitioners has not properly appreciated the legal position attending the issue of grant of bail, inasmuch as the rule is bail not jail which in other words means that grant of bail is a rule and its refusal an exception and that in case bail is granted in favour of the petitioner, he is ready to abide by all terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Court.

5. The respondent-State has resisted the bail petition by filing objections thereto. In its objections, respondent-State has contended that the instant bail petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner is involved in a heinous offence which is against the society at large as the menace of drug addiction has engulfed the society and is creating havoc to the families which needs to be dealt with strong fist; that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner would jump over the concession of bail if granted and that this Court while considering the bail application on the touchstone of individual liberty must not lose sight of interest of the society.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. In the instant case, learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ganderbal, has rejected the bail petition of the petitioner. The question that arises for consideration is whether or not successive bail applications will lie before this Court. The law on this issue is very clear that if an earlier application was rejected by an inferior court, the superior court can always entertain the successive bail application. In this behalf, it will be profitable to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case titled Gurcharan Singh & Ors vs State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 SC 179:

“It is significant to note that under Section 397, Cr. P. C of the new Code while the High Court and the Sessions Judge have the concurrent powers of revision, it is expressly provided under sub-section (3) of that section that when an application under that section has been made by any person to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same pers