JUDGMENT : M.K. Hanjura, J. By order dated 20th April, 2017 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, an application of Sunil Kumar and Mohd Iqbal, for the grant of bail in their favour came to be rejected. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu is a sequel to the fact that the accused are involved in the commission of offences under Section 8/15/29 NDPS Act in FIR bearing No. 189 of the year 2016, registered against them at Police Station, Miran Sahib Jammu. 2. Sunil Kumar, one of the accused whose bail application was rejected earlier in point of time by the order cited above, has filed yet another application before this Court on 04.05.2017 for admitting him to bail in the aforesaid offences, inter-alia, on the grounds the he has been falsely implicated in the commission of the offences imputed to him. He is the only bread earner in the family and in case he is not released on bail, the members of his family shall suffer an irreparable loss and they may die of starvation. The quantity of poppy straw alleged to have been recovered from him falls with the scales of intermediate quantity to which the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not apply. He has been languishing in jail for the last so many months by now. The witnesses to be examined in the case are police officials. The applicant does not wield any control on them and they cannot be won over by him in case he is admitted to bail. 3. Heard and considered. 4. The learned trial Judge after giving an account of the facts of the case has by a well-reasoned order held that 69 Kgs and 100 gm of poppy straw were seized in the case from the possession of the accused and this quantity falls within the parameters of the commercial quantity. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the quantity of poppy straw seized from the accused does not fall within the purview of commercial quantity is, therefore, a spurious argument and entails rejection on the face of it. Taking into consideration the quantity of poppy straw recovered from the accused, the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, applies to the instant case in all the fours. Taking into consideration the quantity of poppy straw recovered from the accused, the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, applies to the instant case in all the fours. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the contraband seized from the custody of the petitioner was not a part of the same assignment is a specious argument. It cannot be considered at this stage, as it would be too early in the day to return a finding on that count. This aspect can be looked into during the trial of the case including the one on the angle of conspiracy for which a specific charge has been framed by the trial Court as gets reflected from the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu. 5. Looking at the instant case from another perspective, 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 this 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 petitioner 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. 6. In view of the preceding analysis, there appears to be no merit and substance in the application of the petitioner. The same entails dismissal and is, accordingly, dismissed. 7. Nothing to substantiate so has been stated in the application on hand. 6. In view of the preceding analysis, there appears to be no merit and substance in the application of the petitioner. The same entails dismissal and is, accordingly, dismissed. 7. A copy of this order shall be sent to the learned trial Court along with the record which has been summoned by this Court.