JUDGMENT : M.K. Hanjura, J. By an order dated 19th April, 2018 of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baramula, an application for the grant of bail in favour of the accused named Tariq Ahmad Sheikh, came to be rejected. The order of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baramulla, is a sequel to the fact that the accused is involved in the commission of offences under Section 8/21 (C) read with Section 29 NDPS Act in case bearing FIR No. 06 of the year 2014, was registered against him at Police Station, Uri. 2. The accused filed yet another application before this Court on 10.05.2018, for admitting him to bail in the aforesaid offences, inter-alia, on the grounds that 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. It is also stated that the case is pending trial and the trial Court has already examined 38 witnesses, who have failed to connect the accused with the commission of crime. 3. In the objections filed by the respondent, it is stated that on 17.01.2014, a vehicle bearing registration No. RIS-10/2137 driven by a Pakistani national Shafeeq Ahmad Awan crossed over from across the Line of Control towards this part of the state. It was laden with 148 sacks of almonds and Katha, the permissible items of trade as per the agreement between the two countries of India and Pakistan. The vehicle crossed the Line of Control and reached the Trade Facilitation Centre, Salamabad, Uri. However, on routine inspection of the merchandise, at the said station by the security personnel in observance of the routine procedure, 09 sacks containing 114 packets out of the total consignment were found apparently filled with Brown sugar. In this regard, a case bearing FIR No. 06/2014 under Section 8/21 (c) read with 29 NDPS Act, was registered at Police station Uri, with which the investigation commenced. In this regard, a case bearing FIR No. 06/2014 under Section 8/21 (c) read with 29 NDPS Act, was registered at Police station Uri, with which the investigation commenced. During the investigation of the case, the present accused/applicant, Tariq Ahmad Sheikh, who was otherwise a prominent trader associated with cross LOC trade, having his own registered firm for the purpose, entered into a criminal conspiracy with Showkat Habib and traders operating from across the Line of Control and one Harjinder Singh @ Happy Singh of Amritsar, Punjab to indulge in illicit transportation of narcotic drugs from across the border to this part of the country. The applicant was fully conversant with the ways and means of the trade, and also with the procedure with which the transported merchandise was being subjected to checking by various authorities at the Trade Facilitation Centre, Salamabad, Uri. He made full use of his familiarity and prevailed upon Showkat Habib to permit him to conduct the trading across LOC by using the name of the firm of the later. In this way, the applicant started trafficking narcotic drugs from across the border to this side of the state and to the other parts of the country till such time that he was caught. It is also stated that during the investigation, the consignment that was intercepted and seized was supposed to land in the hands of Harjinder Singh at Amritsar, The applicant prior to this interception had received consignments in the name of his own firm run under the name and style of “M/s Hamid Brothers” from the suspected consignee from across the Line of Control. On the date of occurrence, the applicant had hired the services of a transporter namely Nazir Ahmad Bhat, to load the consignment from Salamabad Transit point in his vehicle bearing Registration No. JK05B-1215. The applicant, it is further elucidated frequently used the forged documents in the name of two trading firms, one from Srinagar and the other from Baramulla to hide his identity and transported the narcotic shipments in various trucks to Amritsar. The samples were taken from the seized material in presence of the Executive Magistrate. These were sent to J&K Forensic Science Laboratory, Srinagar, for examination and analysis. The accused were arrested on 21.01.2014. On the completion of the investigation of the case, a charge sheet in terms of Section 173 Cr. The samples were taken from the seized material in presence of the Executive Magistrate. These were sent to J&K Forensic Science Laboratory, Srinagar, for examination and analysis. The accused were arrested on 21.01.2014. On the completion of the investigation of the case, a charge sheet in terms of Section 173 Cr. PC was laid against the accused and others before the competent Court of law. It is also stated that the accused/applicant was admitted to interim bail on three occasions by the competent Court on medical grounds. Subsequently this relief was declined to him by the Court and he was sent to District Jail Baramulla. It is also pleaded that the investigation so conducted in the case revealed in explicit terms, the involvement of the above named accused in the commission of the aforesaid offences. It is further pleaded that the applicant has committed a heinous offence. The menace of the narcotics has eaten into the vitals of the society. It is a crime against the society and the societal concerns have to be guarded with zeal and zest. In the end, it has been urged that the motion so preferred by the applicant seeking admission to bail in relation to the above referred crime is devoid of any merit and, as such, the same deserves to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered. 5. The learned trial Judge after giving an account of the facts and the application of law on the subject has by a well-reasoned order held that the material on record in the case, makes one to believe that the applicant is involved in the commission of offence for which he stands charged. Moreover, the statements of the witnesses, who are vital in the case are yet to be recorded. It needs to be noted herein that the consignment of brown sugar alleged to have been seized weighs 118 Kgs and 850 gms and this quantity falls within the scales of the commercial quantity. It is also stated that the material available on record does lead one to believe that the accused is guilty of the offences with which he has been charged. 6. Taking into consideration the quantity of the brown sugar seized in the case, the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, applies to the instant case in all the fours. 6. Taking into consideration the quantity of the brown sugar seized in the case, 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 seized contraband was not recovered from the accused is a specious argument and cannot be considered at this stage. 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 against the applicant as gets reflected from the order of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baramulla. 7. In exercise of the powers conferred by clauses vii(a) and xxiii(a) of Section 2 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) and in supersession of Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue Notification S.O. 527 (E) dated 16th July, 1996, except in respect of things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government specified the quantity mentioned in columns 5 and 6 of the Table, in relation to the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance mentioned in the corresponding entry in columns 2 to 4 of the said Table, as the small quantity and commercial quantity respectively for the purpose of the said clauses of that Section. Column 5 provides that a quantity upto 05 gm of brown sugar falls within the parameters of small quantity and a quantity of 250 gms falls within the scales of commercial quantity. The brown sugar seized in the case falls within the limits, bounds and the scales of a commercial quantity to which the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, applies. If a case falls within the scope and definition of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, grant of bail has to be considered on the agility of the said provision in addition to other limitations prescribed under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which reads as follows:— “[37. If a case falls within the scope and definition of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, grant of bail has to be considered on the agility of the said provision in addition to other limitations prescribed under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which reads as follows:— “[37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.—(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. From the perusal of Section 37 quoted above, it is evident that 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, as is reiterated here, brown sugar weighing 118 Kgs and 850 gms was seized in the case. On the basis of the recovery of such a huge quantity of brown sugar seized in the case under a well-built conspiracy, hatched by the applicant with others, it can well be said that he 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 natural or unpresentable human propensity to always eat the forbidden fruits will ever find means and ways to frustrate the laws and rules prohibiting the use of all such stuff. 9. In Union of India v. Thamisharasi & Others, reported in (JT 1995 (4) SC 253), it has been observed by Hon’ble Apex Court that clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 37 imposes limitations on granting of bail in addition to those provided under the Code. The two imitations are (1) an opportunity to the public prosecutor to oppose the bail application and (2) satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 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 and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. This nature of embargo seems to have been envisaged keeping in view the deleterious nature of the offence, necessitates of public interest and the normal tendencies of the persons involved in such network to pursue their activities with greater vigor and make hay when, at large. 10. 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. 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. 11. In view of the preceding analysis, there appears to be no merit and substance in the application of the applicant. The same entails dismissal and is, accordingly, dismissed. The applicant shall be at liberty to move a fresh application for the grant of bail in his favour before the trial Court which shall be decided on its merits. 12. A copy of this order shall be sent to the learned trial Court.