Del. HC: Liquidated Damages Mentioned in Agreement Can’t be Awarded in Absence of Proof of Loss  ||  MP HC: S.375 Marital Sex Exemption Also Provides Exemption Under Section 377 of IPC  ||  SC: SARFAESI Doesn’t Give Any License to Bank Officers to Act Against the Scheme of Law  ||  All. HC: Court Can’t Mechanically Reject Application for Waiving Off Cooling Period u/s 13B of HMA  ||  Kar. HC: Acquittal Order Can’t be Put in Challenge by Stranger to the Case  ||  Kar. HC: Alternate Remedy Can’t be Used as China Wall Against Invocation of Writ Jurisdiction  ||  Bom. HC Upholds Constitutional Validity of Goa’s Green Cess Act  ||  Del. HC: Not Court’s Business to Demonstrate Morality of an Act unless it has Caused Harm  ||  Del. HC: Cost Accountants and Chartered Accountants Not Similarly Placed Under Law  ||  SC: No Party Ought to be Vexed Twice in a Litigation for One and the Same Cause    

Ghulam Ahmad Sofi Vs. State of J&K - (High Court of Jammu and Kashmir) (23 Jul 2018)

No successive application for bail can be allowed/entertained unless and until there has been a change in circumstances of case



By order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, an application for the grant of bail in favour of the Applicant came to be rejected. The order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, is a sequel to the fact that, the accused is involved in the commission of offences under Sections 15 and 18 Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).

According to Section 37 of Act, no person can be enlarged on bail, if he is found to be in the possession of a commercial quantity of Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act or offences under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27-A Act, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that the accused is not guilty of such an offence. These restrictions are provided in addition to the checks and curbs imposed under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law governing the grant of bails. In the present case, the applicant has been found to be in the possession of 58 Kgs and 500 grams of poppy straw. On the basis of the recovery of such a huge quantity of poppy straw recovered from the residential house of the applicant, it can well be said that the Applicant is prima facie involved in the commission for the offences aforesaid and there is no reasonable ground to believe that, he is not guilty of such offences.

The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that, the provisions of law under Sections 42, 43, 50, 55 and 57 NDPS Act, have been violated in the instant case has been rightly dealt with by the Trial Court in holding that, it cannot be taken into consideration at this stage, as apparently there is nothing on record to presume such violation. These circumstances would be explored only at trial. At this stage, evidence of the prosecution has to be taken on its face value and the probative value of the evidence cannot be gone into.

There has been absolutely no change in the circumstances of the case from the date of the order of the Trial Court till such time that, the bail application has been moved before present Court. It is well settled law that, no successive application for bail can be allowed/entertained unless and until there has been a change in the circumstances of the case. No doubt, the principle of res-judicata does not have its application to the bail applications but the Court has to peep deep to see whether there has been any perceptible change in the circumstances of the case and in case it is not found to be so, the filing of a successive application will lead to a bad precedent. An order rejecting an application of bail would not per se-close the doors of the Applicant in moving another application on a subsequent occasion but the condition precedent is that there should be some fresh material and further developments in the case as will impel and actuate the Court to consider the successive application for bail.

There is no legal bar in entertaining the subsequent application if it is pointed out that there has been a change of substantial nature in the facts and circumstances of the case since the date of passing the earlier order. Nothing to substantiate so has been stated in the application on hand. There is no merit and substance in the application of the applicant. The same is dismissed. Application dismissed.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2023 - All Rights Reserved