JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. - Heard through video conferencing.

2. This is the fourth petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.87 dated 06.06.2019 under Sections 21, 22, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 67 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 registered at Police Station Gate Hakima, Amritsar, District Amritsar.

3. The first petition being CRM-M-33309-2019 and the second petition being CRM-M-23829-2020 were dismissed as withdrawn on 16.01.2020 and 17.11.2020, respectively. The third bail petition being CRM-M-6170-2021 was dismissed by a detailed speaking order on 22.03.2021.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He has further contended that the petitioner is a poor person and a newspaper vendor and has been wrongly and illegally named as an accused in the case. As per learned counsel, except for the mobile and other two sim cards nothing incriminating was recovered from the petitioner and even from the alleged recoveries the petitioner cannot be connected with the alleged crime. Lastly, it has been contended that the petitioner has been behind the bars since 27.06.2019 and that there is no other case pending against the petitioner.

5. Counsel for the State has countered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that all the grounds being raised in the present petition were also raised in the earlier petitions especially CRM-M-6170-2021. According to her, a detailed Status Report dated 21.03.2021 had been submitted in CRM-M-6170-2021 by way of affidavit of Parvesh Chopra, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central, Amritsar wherein the entire modus operandi and the role of the petitioner had been spelt out. According to learned State counsel there was no change in circumstances since the dismissal of CRM-M-6170-2021 and therefore, this fourth bail petition of the petitioner should be dismissed.

6. Heard.

7. A comparison of the present bail petition and the earlier one (CRM-M-6170-2021) reveals that no new grounds for bail have been raised by the petitioner. The only change in circumstance, which has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, is the period of custody. Though an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, the Court also has to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected and the fresh grounds being raised. In the present case no new ground for grant of bail has been agitated. All the grounds which have been raised were also raised in the earlier CRM-M-6170-2021 which was dismissed by a detailed speaking order after calling for a status report from the State. It is well settled that a subsequent bail petition can be moved on fresh grounds or in changed circumstances.

8. In the case in hand the present fourth bail petition is not legally maintainable as no fresh ground has been raised and argued. The grounds which were urged and advanced at the time of disposal of CRM-M-6170- 2021 cannot be opened to be reagitated as this would lead to speculation and uncertainty. This issue has been dealt with by the Apex Court in the matter of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528, wherein it was held as under :

"20. Before concluding, we must note that though an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail the court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected. In such cases, the court also has a duty to record what are the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications. In the impugned order we do not see any such fresh ground recorded by the High Court while granting bail. It also failed to take into considerati