JUDGMENT : 1. Through the present bail application, Petitioner-Jasvinder Kumar seeks bail, inter alia, on the ground that he has been falsely implicated in a criminal case in FIR No.45/2015 dated 11.03.2015 registered at Police Station Nowabad under Section 8, 21, 24, 29, 31 NDPS Act. 2. It is stated in the application that after the completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of law by the concerned investigation agency against four accused persons including the petitioner and three others namely Ved Parkash, Mohd Farooq and Sandeep Kumar. The learned Sessions Judge, Jammu transferred the case to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Jammu and the same is pending trial. It is further stated that the trial Court framed the charge sheet against the applicant/accused person under Sections 8, 21, 24, 29, 31 of NDPS Act on 29.09.2015 and the case was fixed for recording statement of prosecution witnesses on 16.10.2015. The matter has been adjourned many times for recording of the prosecution evidence; two important prosecution witnesses namely Jamil Singh PW-2 and Sub-Inspector Ajay Angotra PW-1 were summoned along with some other formal prosecution witnesses. A bare perusal of the interim orders would reveal the conduct of these two witnesses for avoiding to appear in the Court for further prosecution examination interestingly both the witnesses when claimed to be present at the alleged place of Naka were asked by the defence to produce the respective Roznamcha, it is after that the two official witnesses kept on avoiding to appear before the Court on one or other pretext even though the trial Court issued warrant against them both bailable and non-bailable at several occasions. It is further contended that the petitioner herein who has been shown to have been arrested on 11.03.2015 along with other co-accused, was in fact illegally taken into custody by a team of SOG which was headed by PW-1 Ajay Angotra Sub Inspector who was at that time posted in SOG Jammu while the petitioner was driving a scooter near Shastri Nagar, Jammu, he was carrying a cash of Rs.5,50,000/- with him which he had taken as a sale consideration for his land which he has sold on the same day to one Amar Singh S/o Late Sh. Chela Ram R/o Swankha Morh, Channi Manhasan, Tehsil Vijaypur, District Samba. Chela Ram R/o Swankha Morh, Channi Manhasan, Tehsil Vijaypur, District Samba. It is further stated that immediately after the arrest of petitioner, his brother namely Rajinder Kumar filed an application for release of Scooter, which was also taken away by the SOG party, who had illegally arrested the petitioner during the course of the adjudication upon the application, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu deem fit to initiate an inquiry into the matter and accordingly examined the independent witnesses which established the factum of petitioner having been taken illegal into the custody by the said SOG team on 09.03.2015. It is further contended that the petitioner infact was taken into illegal custody by the SOG team headed by PW-1 Ajay Angotra Sub-Inspector and was subsequently falsely implicated in the present case along with other three co-accused, interestingly the same Ajay Angotra Sub-Inspector has been projected as an ASS witnesses by the prosecution in the instant case. The petitioner declares with all humiliation at his command that no such Naka as shown in the case to have been laid on 11.03.2015 was ever in fact not laid. During the course of Cross examination these two witnesses namely Jamail Singh and Ajay Angotra PW, the cross examination contradicted their own case on material aspects and when were confronted with their claim of being on the alleged Naka and recovering the contraband, so alleged now they have been continuously avoiding to appear before the trial Court with the respective Roznamcha to prove their departure to and their returned from the alleged Naka. Both the prosecution witnesses especially Ajay Kumar Angotra PW-1 seemingly happens to be the story teller of the false case. It is further contended that the petitioner has not committed any offence muchless than the offence he is charged for, he is innocent and has falsely implicated in the instant case alongwith other co-accused. An application for grant of Bail under Section 498 CrPC read with Section 37 of NDPS Act was filed before the Trial Court, which has been rejected on 02.12.2016. The Trial Court is not correct in holding that there was any delay in the trial attributable to the defence. The Trial Court apparently seems to have reached the conclusion merely on the ground of false less allegation levelled in the charge sheet that the petitioner has been convicted and involved in many cases. The Trial Court is not correct in holding that there was any delay in the trial attributable to the defence. The Trial Court apparently seems to have reached the conclusion merely on the ground of false less allegation levelled in the charge sheet that the petitioner has been convicted and involved in many cases. The FIRs relied upon by the investigating agency do not pertain to the petitioner and the Trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the case. It is further stated that no once dispute the stringent nature of the law pertaining to involvement under the provisions of NDPS Act at the same time a sight cannot be lost of the fact this law can more easily be misused as has been done in the instant case. All the prosecution witnesses in this case are Police official, and despite the claim of having conducted a Naka on the highway, surprisingly, no independent witness has been associated to Jamail Singh and Ajay Angotra PWs-1 and 2 have admitted the availability of independent witnesses on the alleged place of occurrence in fact the most strong reason to concocted and fabricated such cases has recently been noticed in the Police Officer to claim the reward which is paid by the Narcotic Department against the alleged prize of the contraband and in the instant case these Police Officer, who are both prosecution witness and architect of the case have claimed the award and the document forms part of the challan. It is therefore prayed that the applicant may kindly be admitted on bail. 3. In response to the application, Mr. S.S. Nanda, learned Sr. AAG, has filed the objections wherein it is stated that the above titled bail application is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed as being premature and without substantial change of the circumstance between the earlier application filed by the petitioner before the court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu which has been rejected on 02.12.2016 and the present application filed before this Court, as such, the present application for bail is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down preposition of law regarding successive bail applications that an accused has a right to make subsequent applications for grant of bail, but the court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to consider the reasons and ground on which the earlier bail applications were rejected and in such cases, the court has also a duty to record what are the fresh grounds which persuade the court to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications. The accused persons including the petitioner having deliberately and intentionally committed very heinous offence under Sections 8, 21, 24, 29, 31 of NDPS Act, as such, the accused-petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage especially when he alleged to have been found in possession of large quantity of “Heroin”. It is also stated that the Court cannot afford to lost sight of the fact that the offence under the Act (NDPS Act) are of serious menace to the society at large, free and unbridled possession and use of such narcotic drugs which, of late, have assumed a very dangerous proportion in social life which are sought to be controlled under the NDPS Act are found in large circulation in society thus impairing the very health and orderly living in society, besides having a deleterious effect on the national economy, and hence the invites a harsh punishment. Since there is also reasonable apprehension that in case the concession of bail is extended to the petitioner at this stage, he may abuse the liberty to subvert justice and threaten the prosecution witnesses, as such, the instant bail petition is required to be rejected out rightly. It is therefore prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may kindly be dismissed. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Addl. AG representing the State. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments has relied upon judgment of Delhi High Court in case titled Kashmir Singh Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau (decided on 18.08.2006). It is apt to reproduce relevant para :- “7. The limitations on granting of bail come in only when the question of granting bail arises on merits. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments has relied upon judgment of Delhi High Court in case titled Kashmir Singh Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau (decided on 18.08.2006). It is apt to reproduce relevant para :- “7. The limitations on granting of bail come in only when the question of granting bail arises on merits. Apart from the grant of opportunity to the public prosecutor, the other twin conditions which really have relevance so far the present accused-respondent is concerned, are (1) the satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The conditions are cumulative and not alternative. The satisfaction contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty has to be based for reasonable grounds. The expression "reasonable grounds" means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. 13. However, as noted above, the Supreme Court in Ranjit Singh Brahmajeet Singh Sharma (supra), while considering the para materia provisions of Section 21(4) of MCOCA, held that the restrictions on the power of the Court to grant bail should not be pushed too far. It further held that if the Court, having regard to the materials brought on record, is satisfied that in all probability he may not be ultimately convicted, an order granting bail may be passed. Elucidating this, the Supreme Court observed: The wording of Section 21(4), in our opinion, does not lead to the conclusion that the Court must arrive at a positive finding that the applicant for bail has not committed an offence under the Act. The Supreme Court further held: The duty of the Court at this stage is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities. As regards the second condition that the accused is not likely to commit an offence while on bail, the Supreme Court held that it must mean an offence under the Act and not any offence whatsoever be it a minor or major offence. As regards the second condition that the accused is not likely to commit an offence while on bail, the Supreme Court held that it must mean an offence under the Act and not any offence whatsoever be it a minor or major offence. The Supreme Court held: ...Similarly, the Court will be required to record a finding as to the probability of his committing a crime after grant of bail. However, such an offence in future must be an offence under the Act and not any other offence. Since it is difficult to predict the future conduct of an accused, the court must necessarily consider this aspect of the matter having regard to the antecedents of the accused, his propensities and the nature and manner in which he is alleged to have committed the offence.” 6. Heard and perused the contents of applications, objections filed by AAG. Challan of trial court also been perused. I have also gone through law on the subject. 7. Section 37 reads as under:- “[37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bail able;- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974)- (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for [offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail,].” 8. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail,].” 8. From the perusal of this Section, it is manifest that no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless the public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. These restrictions are in addition to restrictions imposed under section 497 Cr.P.C. 9. In present case, allegations against the petitioner is that on 11-03-2015, HC Sukh Dev Singh posted at P/S Talab Tillo who was deputed on Poloura Nakka point arrived at P/s Nowabad and presented a written docket for registration of FIR. On the docket it was mentioned staff members of Police Post Talab Tillo and SOG personnel were at Poloura Nakka point and they were checking in routine manner; at about 21:00 hours a maruti van white colour bearing registration no. JK02 AU/2777 driven by driver Sandeep Kumar was found coming towards Jammu city ;it was made to stop and three more persons Jaswinder Kumar (Petitioner herein), Ved Parkash and Mohd. Farooq were also sitting inside the Maruti van. All the four persons were frisked and during frisking, one packet from apparel Sweater banyan of Mohd. Farooq, one packet beneath the driving seat of Sandip Kumar, one packet from apparel jacket of Jaswinder Kumar (petitioner herein) and two packets from upper jacket of Ved Parkash containing heroin were recovered. These were wrapped in transparent white colour sheet with mark “9119” & “PAK AFGHAN” was written in English and Arabic language was found. 10. Accordingly, FIR No. 44/2015 u/s 8/21/24/29 was registered under NDPS Act. During investigation heroin was weighed and total 5 kg 200 gms was found. Rupees 4,85,003/- were also recovered in cash. These were wrapped in transparent white colour sheet with mark “9119” & “PAK AFGHAN” was written in English and Arabic language was found. 10. Accordingly, FIR No. 44/2015 u/s 8/21/24/29 was registered under NDPS Act. During investigation heroin was weighed and total 5 kg 200 gms was found. Rupees 4,85,003/- were also recovered in cash. It was also found during investigation that petitioner Jaswinder Singh was involved in smuggling of heroin of 3 kg and 1 kg brown sugar in 2003 and he was convicted for seven years by the Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu and during imprisonment, he met with Chowdhary Bilal Ahmed of Pakistan. Police concluded that all these persons are habitual offenders and have been involved in various kind of criminal activities of smuggling of heroin, charas, gold, arms and ammunition etc. They all had remained in different jails of Punjab, Delhi and Jammu and Kashmir. They were also detained under the provisions of Public Safety Act. They used to manage drugs etc from International Smuggler of Pakistan and smuggle the same through Indo-Pak border. It has also come to fore during investigation that one Pakistani SIM card was given to petitioner Jaswinder Kumar by one Ch. Bilal Ahmad of Pakistan of Zong Mobile Co. From which Investigating agency came to the conclusion that this person has contact with his Pakistani mentors. 11. After completing the investigation, challan has been produced before the competent court where trial is going on. All the accused persons have been charge sheeted on 29.09.2015 and prosecution is producing the evidence. Prosecution has sighted 41 witnesses and out of 41, maximum numbers of witnesses have been examined. Court below while dismissing the application has held that quantity of contraband is commercial and at the time of considering the bail detail appreciation of evidence cannot be done. 12. Bare perusal of quantities of contraband recovered, it is evident that quantity of contraband recovered is commercial quantity, because small quantity of heroin is 5 gm and commercial is 250gm and above. Now Petitioners have to show that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused/applicants are not guilty of such offence. Learned counsel for petitioners while arguing the matter has read over statements of witnesses recorded during course of trial and brought to the knowledge of court certain contradiction, embellishment and improvement. Now Petitioners have to show that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused/applicants are not guilty of such offence. Learned counsel for petitioners while arguing the matter has read over statements of witnesses recorded during course of trial and brought to the knowledge of court certain contradiction, embellishment and improvement. Now law is clear that detail appreciation of evidence cannot be done at the time of considering the bail in heinous offence. It is not a case that there is nothing incriminating spoken by witnesses examined so far. The certain contradiction, embellishment and improvement which have been brought to the knowledge of court, may be good grounds for acquittal, but not for granting bail. Further in case at this stage any finding is given on contradiction, embellishment and improvement of witnesses made during trial that may prejudice court below in passing final judgment. 13. Further as already noted in challan that petitioner is habitual offender and was already convicted by Principal session judge Jammu in 2003; this fact has not been denied by petitioner; petitioner is, thus, habitual offender and is threat to society at large. Counsel for petitioner has, thus, failed to show that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused/applicant is not guilty of such offence. I have gone through the law cited by counsel, the facts of that case are totally different to that of present case. Further counsel for applicant has stated that prosecution witnesses are not appearing for recording their statement; this aspect of the matter can be taken note by trial court by issuing coercive method for requiring the attendance of witnesses. 14. From the above discussion, I don’t find any reason to grant bail to petitioner at this stage. The application is dismissed. Trial court file be sent back immediately, who shall ensure early disposal of case.