ORDER : 1. The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in NCB Crime No. 41 of 2014, dated 20.10.2014, under Sections 8, 20 and 29 of the ND&PS Act, 1985, registered with Narcotics Control Bureau, Sub Zonal Unit Mandi, District Mandi H.P. 2. By medium of the instant petition, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking his bail in ND&PS case, wherein he was allegedly found in possession of 19.780 kgs of charas and this is his sixth successive attempt to get bail. Earlier, three out of five bail petitions of the petitioner were dismissed and two were dismissed, as withdrawn. The petitioner, like in his earlier petitions, reiterated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as he is permanent resident of the place, and now there is change in circumstances, as many prosecution witnesses have now been examined, so he may be released on bail. 3. In earlier bail petition, i.e. Cr. MP (M) No. 1019 of 2021, this Court has briefly summed up the facts of the case. Again, the facts, which have emerged from the prosecution story, are that on 20.10.2014, NCB team was on routine surveillance duty at Kullu. At about 06:30 p.m. a secret information was received that co-accused Nilmani will come near span, which is situated at some distance ahead to village Shat towards Manikaran, around 08:30 p.m. and 09:00 p.m. and he will give signal of torch towards the village, situated at the other side of the hill and then the villagers will send 15 to 20 kgs of charas through the span towards co-accused Nilmani and he will pick up the contraband. The secret information was given on telephone. A surveillance operation was planned and for interception of the accused persons a team was constituted. NCB team laid a nakka near Shat village and waited for accused Nilmani. Around 08:30 p.m. a person came towards village Shat and near the span he gave signal with torch. After 5-7 minutes some material came through span to the side and the person waiting there picked up the same. The person, who collected the material from the span, was apprehended. Around 08:30 p.m. a person came towards village Shat and near the span he gave signal with torch. After 5-7 minutes some material came through span to the side and the person waiting there picked up the same. The person, who collected the material from the span, was apprehended. That person disclosed his identity as Nilmani alias Nitu. The accused alongwith the bag was taken to NCB, Sub Zone Office, Mandi, where the bag was checked and it was found stuffed with dark brown colour substance, which was wrapped with polythene papers, in the shape of biscuit and square. The recovered substance was tested with the help of drug detection kit and the same was found to be charas. The recovered contraband was weighed and it was found to be 19.780 kgs. Thereafter, requisite codal formalities were completed. During the course of investigation one Khekh Ram was found to have supplied the contraband to accused Nilmani, but he remained absconded. Accused Khekh Ram subsequently surrendered and his custody was handed over to NCB, Mandi. During the course of investigation it was unearthed that accused Mohar Singh and Ambri Lal were instrumental in arranging the consignment of charas to co-accused Nilmani alias Nitu. Mobile records of the accused persons reveal that accused persons remained in constant touch with each other. Owner of the span stated that on 20.10.2014 a person, namely Ram Lal (petitioner herein) came to him with two bags and asked him to send those bags through his span and he did not divulge about the contents of the bags. The petitioner was found to have used Mobile No. 9816559297, through which he made several calls. The petitioner was issued notices under Section 67 of the ND&PS Act, but he did not turn up and remained absconded. The investigation further revealed that the petitioner was supplier of the charas. Lastly, it is prayed that as the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and he also remained absconded, the bail petition be dismissed, as there is apprehension that the accused might flee from justice in case, at this stage, he is enlarged on bail and there is also a possibility that he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and there is no change in the circumstances. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/NCB and gone through the record, carefully. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/NCB and gone through the record, carefully. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case in hand. He has argued that other accused persons have been acquitted and the petitioner himself surrendered before the police. The petitioner is resident of the place and he is neither in a position to jump over the bail, in case granted in his favour. The petitioner is willing to abide by the terms and conditions of the bail, in case so granted. He has further argued that now there is change in the circumstances, as many of the prosecution witnesses have been examined and if the statement of one of the material witness, namely Devinder Nath is seen, it is clear that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/NCB has argued that there is no change in the circumstances and the petitioner was found involved in a serious crime and he is supplier of charas. The investigation revealed that he allegedly supplied huge quantity of charas and subsequently he remained absconded. The petitioner was aware of the proceedings of the Court and there is every likelihood that he will be convicted on the available evidence, which is with the Narcotic Control Bureau. He has further argued that taking into consideration the huge quantity of contraband allegedly supplied by the petitioner, the fact that there is no considerable change in the circumstances and the fact that trial is in its crucial stage, the present bail application be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is behind the bars for sufficiently long period and no purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period and now there is change in the circumstances, so the present application be allowed. 7. Allegedly, the petitioner was found in possession of commercial quantity of charas, i.e. 19.780 kgs and this Court dismissed his successive bail applications thrice and twice his bail applications were dismissed as withdrawn, so, now the petitioner has to weave out a case of change in circumstances. 7. Allegedly, the petitioner was found in possession of commercial quantity of charas, i.e. 19.780 kgs and this Court dismissed his successive bail applications thrice and twice his bail applications were dismissed as withdrawn, so, now the petitioner has to weave out a case of change in circumstances. However, in a catena of judgments, it has been held that in cases of successive bail petitions, after dismissal of earlier bail petitions, the petitioner has to demonstrate substantial change in the circumstances and such change is of such a magnitude to convince the Court for enlarging the petitioner on bail. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, now many prosecution witnesses have been examined and one of the witnesses, namely Devinder Nath has deposed in his favour, so there is a substantial change in the circumstances. In view of this, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 8. Admittedly, after the dismissal of earlier bail petitions of the petitioner, many prosecution witnesses have been examined. However, still the trial is going on and it is at a crucial stage, so the argument that the now there is substantial change in the circumstances, has no force, hence the same cannot be accepted. 9. At this moment, after analyzing the records and hearing the learned Counsel/Senior Counsel for the parties, this Court finds that there is no change in the circumstances. Admittedly, the petitioner is resident of the place, but this Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that the petitioner evaded his arrest for long time. The recovered contraband in question is 19.780 kgs and thus commercial quantity. The trial is in its crucial stage and if at this stage, keeping in view all the above circumstances, the petitioner if enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice and may also influence the witnesses. So, in view of the overall aspects of the case and the material, which has come on record, this Court finds that the present is not a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. 10. The petition, being devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of. 10. The petition, being devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of. However, since the petitioner is behind the bars for considerable time, it is expected from the learned trial Court to dispose of the matter as early as possible. 11. It goes without saying that the observations made hereinabove are only confined for the disposal of the instant petition and the same shall have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the main case, which shall be adjudicated on its own merits.