JUDGMENT : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nirav P. Pandya for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Soni for the respondent-State through video conference. 2. This is a successive bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure in connection with First Information Report being CR No. I-1/2019 registered with ATS Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23(c), 25, 29 and 32(b)(e)(f) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (For Short "the NDPS Act"). 3. Criminal Misc. Application No. 8431/2020 preferred by the applicant earlier was withdrawn by the applicant and therefore, the same was disposed of by order dated 14th August, 2020 as withdrawn. 4. Learned advocate for the applicant Mr. Pandya has again made submissions on merits of the matter without pointing out the change of circumstances, except for stating that the trial is still pending before the Court below. It was submitted that the petitioner has been arrested in view of call details obtained by the prosecution with regard to his talk with accused no. 12-Haji Nadar who is absconding. On perusal of the FIR, it is revealed that ATS police station, Ahmedabad filed the FIR being CR No. I-1/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23(c), 25, 29 and 32(b)(e)(f) of the NDPS Act and after conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet is already filed. 5. It was submitted by learned advocate Mr. Pandya that the applicant is a reputed person in the society doing job in Mumbai. However, as per the details in the charge-sheet, the applicant is doing the business of supplying waiters in hotel. 6. It also appears from the charge-sheet that on 27th March, 2019 raid was conducted and accused no. 1 to 9 were arrested for possessing banned substance of heroin in commercial quantity. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested from Mumbai on 13th April, 2019 by the ATS and his house at Delhi was raided where substance of Methamphetamine of 4918 grams of value of Rs. 24.59 crores was seized. According to the learned advocate Mr. Pandya, house which was raided by the ATS being House No. 410, Second Floor, Pahadganj, New Delhi did not belong to the applicant and there is nothing on record to show the occupation of the said house by the applicant. 7. 24.59 crores was seized. According to the learned advocate Mr. Pandya, house which was raided by the ATS being House No. 410, Second Floor, Pahadganj, New Delhi did not belong to the applicant and there is nothing on record to show the occupation of the said house by the applicant. 7. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Soni submitted that the applicant is accused for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23(c), 25, 29 and 32(b)(e)(f) of the NDPS Act and considering the provisions of section 53A and 54 of the NDPS Act, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. It was submitted that the main accused persons are absconding who were in touch with the applicant and if the applicant is released on bail, there is likelihood that the applicant would again commit such offences. It was also pointed out that the applicant is part of conspiracy to import Heroin in Gujarat and therefore, the applicant should not be enlarged on bail. 8. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the charge-sheet papers produced on record, it appears that the applicant is arrested for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23(c), 25, 29 and 32(b)(e)(f) of the NDPS Act. The applicant has already withdrawn earlier bail application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 8431/2020 vide order dated 14th August, 2020 and thereafter, there is no change of circumstances which would enable this Court to consider the case again on merits to grant regular bail to the applicant for the offences for which he is arrested. 9. The Apex Court as well as this Court in the following cases have held that no successive bail application can be entertained by the High Court, in absence of any change of circumstances: (1) Shyamdutt Upadhyay and Another v. State of Gujarat reported in 1992(1) GLH 259 "4. When a Court is not inclined to grant the bail, it would give some reasons rejecting the application, which might come in the way of the accused during the trial and because of that the Advocate for the accused would prefer to withdraw the application instead of getting the application rejected with reasons. When a Court is not inclined to grant the bail, it would give some reasons rejecting the application, which might come in the way of the accused during the trial and because of that the Advocate for the accused would prefer to withdraw the application instead of getting the application rejected with reasons. In such an event the subsequent bail application of the same accused cannot be entertained, unless and until fresh circumstance or ground is made out by the accused for releasing him on bail. In this case, no new ground is made out by the petitioners for releasing them on bail. Therefore, this application is required to be rejected." (2) State of Gujarat v. Alpeshbhai Navinbhai Patel reported in 2004(1) GLH 754 "9. Normally, the substantial change in the circumstances are being considered stage wise, i.e. (i) at the stage of considering the matter for granting anticipatory bail, (ii) at the stage of considering the matter for regular bail before the charge sheet when the investigation is in progress and (iii) after filing of charge sheet and after completion of investigation." (3) Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Another reported in 2005 (3) GLH 601 "18. The principles of res judicata and such analogous principles although are not applicable in a criminal proceeding, still the Courts are bound by the doctrine of judicial discipline having regard to the hierarchical system prevailing in our country. The findings of a higher Court or a coordinate bench must receive serious consideration at the hands of the Court entertaining a bail applicable at a later stage when the same had been rejected earlier. In such an event, the Courts must give due weight to the grounds which weighed with the former or higher Court in rejecting the bail application. Ordinarily, the issues which had been canvassed earlier would not be permitted to be reagitated on the same grounds, as the same would lead to speculation and uncertainty in the administration of justice and may lead to forum hunting. 19. The decisions given by a superior forum, undoubtedly, is binding on the subordinate for a on the same issue even in bail matters unless of course, there is a material change in the fact situation calling for a different view being taken. 19. The decisions given by a superior forum, undoubtedly, is binding on the subordinate for a on the same issue even in bail matters unless of course, there is a material change in the fact situation calling for a different view being taken. Therefore, even though there is room for filing a subsequent bail application in cases where earlier applications have been rejected, the same can be done if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. This is the limited area in which an accused who has been denied bail earlier, can move a subsequent application. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the argument of learned Counsel for the accused that in view the guaranty conferred on a person under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is open to the aggrieved person to make successive bail applications even on a ground already rejected by Courts earlier including the Apex Court of the country." (4) State of Maharashtra v. Budhikota Subbarao reported in 1989 (0) GLHELSC 28635: "7. Once that application was rejected there was no question of granting a similar prayer. That is virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being a change in the fact situation. and when we speak of change, we mean a substantial one which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence. For the above reasons we are of the view that there was no justification for passing the impugned order in the absence of a substantial change in the fact-situation. That is what prompted Shetty, J. to describe the impugned order as 'a bit out of the ordinary'. Judicial restraint demands that we say no more." 10. Considering the above settled legal position of law together with facts emerging from the record, more particularly, the fact that no fresh new ground is made out by the applicant for releasing him on bail, this successive bail application is rejected. Rule is discharged.