ORDER : Petitioner is accused in case registered vide FIR No.204 of 2019 dated 29.09.2019 Registered at Police Station, Bhuntar District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’). Petitioner was arrested in the above noted case on 06.10.2019 and is in custody since then. 2. Petitioner is seeking his release on bail in above noted case under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on the premise that his implication is false. Since, he has been arrayed as an accused with the aid of Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (for short NDPS) Act, rigors of Section 37 would not apply especially when nothing was recovered from the possession of petitioner. The alleged disclosure by co-accused cannot be used against him. Conspiracy cannot be inferred from alleged telephone calls. There is no legal evidence against the petitioner. The mobile number alleged to be used by petitioner, in fact, did not belong to him. 3. It has further been contended on behalf of the petitioner that he is permanent resident of Village Chhaky, Post office, Nagar Tehsil Sadar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh and has roots in the society. There is no likelihood of petitioner absconding from course of justice. He undertakes to abide by all the conditions as may be imposed. The petitioner has also relied upon statement of his brother Sh. Dharam Chand recorded in the case as PW-1 by learned Special Judge on 01.09.2021. 4. On notice, respondent has placed on record status report. As per case of respondent, a huge quantity of 3 Kg. 382 grams of cannabis (Charas) was seized from personal search of one Joseph Shobal during routine checking in a bus at about 11.20 P.M. on 29.09.2019 at Bajaura District, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. Further investigation revealed that Joseph Shobal was resident of Kerala and had purchased the seized contraband for Rs.4,80,000/- from bail petitioner through one Mohsin. Contention of respondent is that there were regular telephonic conversations between petitioner Mohsin and Joseph Shobal between 26.09.2019 to 28.09.2019, which sufficiently revealed implication of petitioner in the crime. 5. On completion of investigation, challan was presented and trial is pending before learned Special Judge, Kullu. 6. Contention of respondent is that there were regular telephonic conversations between petitioner Mohsin and Joseph Shobal between 26.09.2019 to 28.09.2019, which sufficiently revealed implication of petitioner in the crime. 5. On completion of investigation, challan was presented and trial is pending before learned Special Judge, Kullu. 6. The first bail application of petitioner before this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was Cr.MP(M) No. 926 of 2020 which was withdrawn by him on 02.07.2020 with liberty to file afresh at appropriate stage. 7. Petitioner preferred another application for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. being Cr.MP(M) No.1531 of 2021, which was rejected by this Court on 24.09.2021. 8. The instant petition is third successive application on the ground that there is a change in circumstance. It is contended on behalf of petitioner that the implication of petitioner is only on the basis of confessional statements of co-accused as well as some CDR wrongly attributed to him. Sh. Bhupinder Ahuja, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court in the case of Saina Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, Cr.MP(M) No. 675 of 2022, decided on 04.05.2022 has allowed the successive bail petition. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the present case is also covered by the case of Saina Devi (supra). 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 10. It is trite law that successive regular bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. can be maintained only if there are changed circumstances and such changed circumstances warrant the grant of bail. Reference can be made to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Kajad (2001) 7 SCC 673 . In the absence of the aforesaid conditions, the order granting bail by allowing successive bail application amounts to review of its order by a criminal Court, which is not permissible under criminal law. 11. In Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit vs. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 11 SCC 458 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- “30. Before concluding, we must note that though an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, the court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duly to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected. Before concluding, we must note that though an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, the court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duly to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected. In such cases, the court also has a duly to record the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications.” 12. Keeping in view the aforesaid exposition of law and after taking notice of the peculiar facts of instant case, this Court is of considered view that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be granted. The earlier bail application of the petitioner Cr.MP(M) No. 1531 of 2021 was rejected by this Court after taking into consideration the following few facts: (i) Involvement of commercial quantity of contraband; (ii) Rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act; (iii) Existence of prima-facie material in the shape of CDR details. (iv) Involvement of petitioner in another case under the NDPS Act. 13. As far as Saina Devi (supra) is concerned, this Court allowed the prayer of petitioner in that case on the ground that in view of a subsequent judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and another, (2022) 2 Scale 14, the existence of CDR was not sufficient to disentitle a person from grant of bail under the NDPS Act. However, as noticed above, apart from existence of CDRs other grounds had weighed with this Court while rejecting the earlier bail application of the petitioner. Section 37 of the NDPS Act, puts an embargo on grant of bail to a person accused of offence under the NDPS Act involving commercial quantity, unless three conditions as detailed hereafter are satisfied: - (i) Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release. (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 (iii) That he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 14. (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 (iii) That he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 14. The above conditions are to be read conjunctively and in order to hold a person, involved in an offence under the NDPS Act, having commercial quantity, entitled to bail, the aforesaid conditions needs to be satisfied and the Court has to record its satisfaction in that respect. 15. While deciding Cr.MP(M) No. 1531 of 2021, this Court had taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner was accused of selling huge quantity of contraband despite the fact that another case under the NDPS Act was pending against the petitioner. In para 13 of the said order, it was observed as under: “13. Petitioner is accused of selling huge quantity of contraband for consideration. It is also alleged that another case under the NDPS Act, is pending against the petitioner. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner if released on bail, will not indulge in the same activity during the bail." 16. As far as this fact is concerned, no change is stated to have taken place. It is not even the case of petitioner that the earlier findings were incorrect or he has been acquitted in the earlier case. On the other hand, it is revealed from the status report submitted on behalf of the respondent that a case under Section 20 of the NDPS Act registered vide FIR No. 94/2019 at Police Station, Manali is pending against petitioner in the Court. 17. In view of this, there is no material which may warrant a finding different than the finding recorded in para 13 (supra) of order dated 24.9.2021 passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 1531 of 2021. 18. In view of this, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be allowed. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. 19. Any opinion expressed hereinabove shall be construed only for the purposes of disposal of this application and shall have no effect on the merits of the case.