JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is facing trial in a case registered under Sections 8/18, 8/26 and 8/29 of the N.D.RS. Act. First bail petition moved by the petitioner was dismissed on merits by this court on August 2, 2000. In the earlier order it was observed that ratio of Naresh v. U.O.I. ( AIR 1996 SC 522 ) was prima facie applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Now in the instance second bail petition an attempt has been made to distinguish the case of Naresh v. U.O.I. (supra). During the course of arguments was taken through the provisions contained in sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act and Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Argument in respect of illness of the petitioners son was also advanced. 2. It is well settled that when court dismisses earlier bail petition under section 439 Cr.P.C. there must be substantial change in the fact situation for the court to entertain a subsequent bail petition and not otherwise. Accused can move second bail petition on fresh circumstances. In the instant matter I do not see any change in the circumstances that existed at the time of dismissal of first bail petition. 3. In so far as admissibility of the confessional statements recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act by the investigating Officer is concerned, I cannot finally adjudicate upon the legal issue at this stage but their Lordships of the Apex Court in Harbans Singh v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1972 SC 1224 ) indicated that confessional statements recorded to an officer of Customs under the Customs Act are admissible in evidence and are not hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act or Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. 4. I am unable to persuade myself to take a sympathetic view in the matter as the alleged allegations against the petitioner are anti social in nature. The bail petitioner is in custody since April 2000, I direct the trial court to complete the trial of the petition with utmost expedition preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order. *******