JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Petitioner has filed instant petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC') for grant of bail in case FIR No. 86 of 2017, dated 30th October, 2017, under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act'), registered at Police Station Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, H.P. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was arrested on 29th November, 2017 for having found in possession of charas, weighing 1.007 kg, during search of hotel/shop run by him at Khairi in District Sirmaur, on the basis of secret information received by the police. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that there is no compliance of Section 42 (2) of the NDPS Act. There is noncompliance/violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act as joint consent memo has been prepared by the raiding police party of two accused persons and as has been held in case titled State of Himachal Pradesh versus Bishan Dutt, (2016) 2 ShimLC 1160 , there must be individual communication with respect to search of each and every person and as the provisions of the NDPS Act are stringent in nature providing severe punishment, strict compliance of procedure and process, instead of substantial compliance, is must to be followed and as the memo of consent prepared under Section 50 of the NDPS Act is defective, there is every likelihood of failure of prosecution case and the petitioner is in jail since ten months, he is entitled for bail as rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act will not be applicable in present case for peculiar circumstances and failure of prosecution in complying with the mandatory provisions of the said Act. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application keeping in view the commercial quantity of the contraband recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner coupled with the provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has been found running a business of supplying charas from his dhaba and, thus, his enlargement on bail would definitely result into continuation of the same business by the petitioner. 5. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has been found running a business of supplying charas from his dhaba and, thus, his enlargement on bail would definitely result into continuation of the same business by the petitioner. 5. Some of the principles evolved in various pronouncements of the apex Court, which have to be kept in mind at the time of consideration of bail applications by the Courts, are as under: 1. Grant of bail is general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in correction home during trial is an exception and presumption of innocence, i.e. person is believed to be innocent until found guilty is fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence. But, these principles are not applicable in cases where there is reverse onus and/or statutory presumption with regard to commission of offence. Such cases are to be dealt with differently keeping in view statutory presumption and reverse onus provided under the relevant statute. (See Dataram Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 , para 1) 2. While making a general statement of law that the accused is innocent, till proved guilty, the statutory provisions of relevant Act, like Section 29 of the POCSO Act, have to be taken into consideration which provides for presumption as to commission of any offence under Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the Act. (See State of Bihar versus Rajballav Prasad alias Rajballav Prasad Yadav alias Rajballabh Yadav, (2017) 2 SCC 178 , para 22) 3. Each criminal case presents its own peculiar factual scenario and, therefore, certain grounds peculiar to a particular case may have to be taken into account by the Court. The Court has only to opine as to whether there is prima facie case against the accused. The Court must not undertake meticulous examination of the evidence collected by the police and comment upon the same. Such assessment of evidence and premature comments are likely to deprive the accused of a fair trial. (See Kanwar Singh Meena versus State of Rajasthan and another, (2012) 12 SCC 180 ) 4. A bail application is not to be entertained on the basis of certain observations made in a different context. There has to be application of mind and appreciation of the factual score and understanding of the pronouncements in the field. (See Kanwar Singh Meena versus State of Rajasthan and another, (2012) 12 SCC 180 ) 4. A bail application is not to be entertained on the basis of certain observations made in a different context. There has to be application of mind and appreciation of the factual score and understanding of the pronouncements in the field. (See Virupakshappa Gouda and another versus State of Karnataka and another, (2017) 5 SCC 406 , para 14) 5. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. (See Virupakshappa Gouda and another versus State of Karnataka and another, (2017) 5 SCC 406 , para 16; CBI versus Vijay Sai Reddy, (2013) 7 SCC 452 ) 6. The Courts are not oblivious of the fact that the liberty is a priceless treasure for a human being. It is founded on the bedrock of the constitutional right and accentuated further on human rights principle. It is basically a natural right. In fact, some regard it as the grammar of life. No one would like to lose his liberty or barter it for all the wealth of the world. People from centuries have fought for liberty, for absence of liberty causes sense of emptiness. The sanctity of liberty is the fulcrum of any civilised society. It is a cardinal value on which the civilisation rests. It cannot be allowed to be paralysed and immobilised. Deprivation of liberty of a person has enormous impact on his mind as well as body. A democratic body polity which is wedded to rule of law, anxiously guards liberty. But, a pregnant and significant one, the liberty of an individual is not absolute. [The] society by its collective wisdom through process of law can withdraw the liberty that it has sanctioned to an individual when an individual becomes a danger to the collective and to the societal order. But, a pregnant and significant one, the liberty of an individual is not absolute. [The] society by its collective wisdom through process of law can withdraw the liberty that it has sanctioned to an individual when an individual becomes a danger to the collective and to the societal order. Accent on individual liberty cannot be pyramided to that extent which would bring chaos and anarchy to a society. A society expects responsibility and accountability from its members, and it desires that the citizens should obey the law, respecting it as a cherished social norm. No individual can make an attempt to create a concavity in the stem of social stream. It is impermissible. Therefore, when an individual behaves in a disharmonious manner ushering in the disorderly things which the society disapproves, the legal consequences are bound to follow. At that stage, the court has a duty. It cannot abandon its sacrosanct obligation and pass an order at its own whim or caprice. It has to be guided by the established parameters of law. (See Neeru Yadav versus State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 , para 16; Rakesh Ranjan Yadav versus CBI, (2007) 1 SCC 70 , para 16; Masroor versus State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 , para 15; Ash Mohammad versus Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and another, (2012) 9 SCC 446 , paras 10 & 25; Chandrakeshwar Prasad alias Chandu Babu versus State of Bihar and another, (2016) 9 SCC 443 paras 10, 11) 7. Detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of merits of the case are to be avoided. (See Puran versus Rambilas and another, (2001) 6 SCC 338 , para 8; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 : (SCC pp. 53536, para 11); Vinod Bhandari versus State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 15 SCC 389, para 13; Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit versus State of Maharashtra, (2018) 11 SCC 458 , para 2.) Consideration of details of the evidence is not a relevant consideration. While it is necessary to consider the prima facie case, an exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case should be avoided by refraining from considering the merits of material/evidence collected by the prosecution. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit versus State of Maharashtra, (2018) 11 SCC 458 , para 2.) Consideration of details of the evidence is not a relevant consideration. While it is necessary to consider the prima facie case, an exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case should be avoided by refraining from considering the merits of material/evidence collected by the prosecution. (See Anil Kumar Yadav versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2018) 12 SCC 129 , para 15; and Criminal Appeal No. 1175 of 2018, titled The State of Orissa versus Mahimananda Mishra, decided on 18th September, 2018) 8. It is not necessary to go into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made against the accused as this is a subject matter to be dealt with by the trial Judge. (See Dataram Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 , para 16) 9. Where prima facie involvement of the accused is apparent, material contradictions in the charge sheet are required to be tested at the time of trial and not at the time of consideration of grant of bail. (See Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit versus State of Maharashtra, (2018) 11 SCC 458 , para 28) 10. Probability or improbability of the prosecution version has to be judged based on the material available to the court at the time when bail is considered and not on the basis of discrepancies. (See Anil Kumar Yadav versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2018) 12 SCC 129 , para 21) 11. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and reasons for grant of bail in cases involving serious offences should be given. (See Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 : (SCC pp. 535-36, para 11); Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2012) 4 SCC 134 , para 32; Vinod Bhandari versus State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 15 SCC 389, para 13; Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit versus State of Maharashtra, (2018) 11 SCC 458 , para 29) 12. At the time of assigning reasons in order to grant/refuse bail, there should not be discussion of merits and demerits of the evidence. (See State of Bihar versus Rajballav Prasad alias Rajballav Prasad Yadav alias Rajballabh Yadav, (2017) 2 SCC 178 , para 15) 13. Prasad Shrikant Purohit versus State of Maharashtra, (2018) 11 SCC 458 , para 29) 12. At the time of assigning reasons in order to grant/refuse bail, there should not be discussion of merits and demerits of the evidence. (See State of Bihar versus Rajballav Prasad alias Rajballav Prasad Yadav alias Rajballabh Yadav, (2017) 2 SCC 178 , para 15) 13. Giving reasons is different from discussing evidence/merits and demerits. (See Puran versus Rambilas and another, (2001) 6 SCC 338 , para 8; State of Bihar versus Rajballav Prasad alias Rajballav Prasad Yadav alias Rajballabh Yadav, (2017) 2 SCC 178 , para 15) 14. Under Section 439 CrPC, the Sessions Court and the High Court has concurrent jurisdiction to grant bail. Therefore, an application filed before the High Court under Section 439 CPC, after rejection of an application filed before Sessions Court under the said Section, is definitely a successive application and is not a revision or appeal against rejection of bail application by the Sessions Court. 15. 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 the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications. (See Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit versus State of Maharashtra, (2018) 11 SCC 458 , para 30) 16. The period of incarceration by itself would not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail. (See Anil Kumar Yadav versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2018) 12 SCC 129 , para 24; Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala versus State of Gujarat, (2008) 3 SCC 775 , para 22 and Ram Govind Upadhyay versus Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 , para 9) 17. Filing of charge sheet establishes that after due investigation the investigating agency, having found materials, has placed the chargesheet for trial of the accused persons. (See Virupakshappa Gouda and another versus State of Karnataka and another, (2017) 5 SCC 406 , para 12) 6. Filing of charge sheet establishes that after due investigation the investigating agency, having found materials, has placed the chargesheet for trial of the accused persons. (See Virupakshappa Gouda and another versus State of Karnataka and another, (2017) 5 SCC 406 , para 12) 6. The relevant factors, as culled out by the apex Court in various pronouncements, to be kept in mind at the time of consideration of bail applications are as follows: (1) Satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge as to whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (2) Nature and gravity of the accusation/ charge; (3) Seriousness of the offence/crime and severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (4) Nature and character of supportive evidence; (5) Character, conduct, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (6) The Courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused and the Court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case; (7) The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; (8) Position and status of accused with reference to the victim and witnesses to assess the impact that release of accused may make on the prosecution witnesses and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced or tampered with or apprehension of threat to the complainant/ witnesses and possibility of obstructing the course of justice; (9) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (10) likelihood and possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences; (11) A reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial and danger of the accused absconding or fleeing from justice; (12) Impact of grant of bail on the society and danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail affecting the larger interest of the public or the State; (13) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; (14) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people; (15) Whether the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her; (16) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail; (17) No doubt, this list is not exhaustive. There are no hard and fast rules regarding grant or refusal of bail, each case has to be considered on its own merits. The matter always calls for judicious exercise of discretion by the Court. (See Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1978) 1 SCC 118 ); Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia versus State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 ; Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280 ; Puran v. Rambilas, (2001) 6 SCC 338 ; Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 ; Chaman Lal versus State of U.P. and another, (2004) 7 SCC 525 ; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 , para 11); Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N., (2005) 2 SCC 13 , para 16); State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 , para 18; Prashanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another, (2010) 14 SCC 496 ; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre versus State of Maharashtra and Others, (2011) 1 SCC 694 ; Prakash Kadam versus Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta, (2011) 6 SCC 189 ; Kanwar Singh Meena versus State of Rajasthan and another, (2012) 12 SCC 180 ; Anil Kumar Yadav versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2018) 12 SCC 129 ; Criminal Appeal No. 1175 of 2018, titled The State of Orissa versus Mahimananda Mishra, decided on 18th September, 2018) 7. Perusal of the status report filed and record produced by the prosecution indicates that immediately after receiving the secret information, the same was reduced into writing by the Investigating Officer at 5.15 p.m. on 30th October, 2017, by addressing a letter to Sub Divisional Police Officer, Rajgarh, which was sent through HHC Deepak (No. 235), who had delivered the same to Sub Divisional Police Officer, Rajgarh at 6.30 p.m. on 30th October, 2017. 8. On reaching on the shop, though, consent memo under Section 50 of NDPS Act was also prepared by the Investigating Officer, however, the contraband was recovered from the counter of the shop run by the petitioner and relevance and effect of noncompliance/violation of the provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act, if any, and effect thereof on merits of the case, are yet to be considered by the trial Court. Moreover, as discussed supra, at the time of grant of bail, merit of evidence is not be considered by the Court considering the application for grant of bail. 9. As has been held by the apex Court in Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit's case, material contradictions, if any, in the charge sheet are required to be tested at the time of trial and not at the time of consideration of grant of bail where prima facie involvement of the accused is apparent. 10. In view of the ratio laid down by the apex Court, plea raised on behalf of the petitioner with respect to noncompliance/violation of provisions of Sections 42(2) and 50 of the NDPS Act is to be considered by the trial Court at the time of consideration of charge and in case charge has been framed, during the trial. It is also settled law that considerations at the time of framing the charge and at the time of granting the bail are altogether different. 11. Undoubtedly, the quantity of the contraband recovered from the petitioner is commercial in nature. Therefore, rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act are applicable in present case. 12. Section 37 of NDPS Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in CrPC, no person, accused on an offence punishable for offence involving commercial quantity, where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, shall be released on bail or on his own bond, unless the Court, despite opposition of the Public Prosecutor, 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. Apart from the provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act, relevant factors supra, as referred by the apex Court, are also necessary to be considered. 13. In Section 37(1)(b)(i) of NDPS Act, opportunity has been provided to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the application for release of the accused on bail and in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the said Act, it has been provided that despite opposition of the Public Prosecutor, the Court can grant bail, if 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. 14. 14. In present case, no material has been brought to the notice of the Court so as to infer that the prosecution story with respect to recovery of contraband is exfacie unbelievable and the petitioner is not guilty of having possession of commercial quantity of charas. 15. Keeping in view the provisions of reverse onus, as provided in Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act and the quantity of contraband recovered from the petitioner, the plea that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last ten months is also not a valid ground for enlargement of the petitioner on bail. (See Anil Kumar Yadav versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2018) 12 SCC 129 , para 24; Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala versus State of Gujarat, (2008) 3 SCC 775 , para 22 and Ram Govind Upadhyay versus Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 , para 9) 16. Further, challan is pending for consideration of charge before the trial Court and stated to be listed on 3rd October, 2018. Petitioner had also approached learned Sessions Judge by filing an application under Section 439 CPC for grant of bail on 15th March, 2018, which was dismissed on 29th March, 2018 by passing a detailed order. 17. No doubt, petitioner has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, but, at the time of considering successive applications, reasons and grounds considered in earlier bail applications are also to be taken into consideration and the fresh grounds for taking a different view therefrom must be recorded, as observed by the apex Court in Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit's case. 18. Learned Sessions Judge, at the time of considering the bail application, has taken into consideration cumulative effect of various circumstances, the relevant facts, evidence on record and provisions of law and has declined to release the petitioner on bail. No fresh grounds have been brought to the notice of this Court so as to differ from the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge, at this stage. 19. No fresh grounds have been brought to the notice of this Court so as to differ from the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge, at this stage. 19. It is apt to record herein that the petitioner, earlier had approached this Court by filing a similar application under Section 439 CrPC, which was dismissed as withdrawn, no details whereof have either been given in the petition or disclosed during the course of arguments except giving a passing reference of filing and withdrawal of such application in para 10 of the petition wherein it has been stated that petitioner had filed the application under Section 439 CrPC which had been withdrawn. 20. In view of above, without commenting upon the merits of the evidence and keeping in view the principles laid down by the apex Court, nature and gravity of offence and its impact on societal interests, petitioner is not entitled for bail. Hence, the petition is dismissed.