JUDGMENT : 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11217030230060 of 2023 registered with the Siddhpur Police Station, Patan of the offence punishable under Sections 8(C), 22(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act. 3. In nutshell the allegations made in the complaint are that while the complainant along with other police staff were on patrolling duty on 19.01.2023, at around 22:30, they received a secret information from the reliable sources that one motorcycle- borne person will reach near Khadi cross-road at around 12:00 to 2:00 hours for delivering the contraband substance Mephedrone and the number of the motorcycle is GJ-21-R-5899, which information then reduced into writing and forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Patan. 3.1 Thereafter, as the trap had to be arranged, Panchas were also called for and got acquainted with the inputs received by the police. Then, after following requisite internal search procedure, they left for the place under information. 3.2 After reaching there, they arranged a trap, and at around 00:25 hours, the vehicle under information, i.e, Honda Splendor bearing its registration No.GJ-21-R-5899 found to be entered into the limit of Patan and proceeded towards the Khadi cross-road and when reached to the road stretching towards Khadi village at Mehsana-Palanpur highway, stopped the bike near one car already standing over there and started talking with the person sitting in the car. At that time, all the members of the raiding party cordoned the said two persons and caught them. 3.3 Thereafter, the Police Inspector R.G. Unagar, S.G. Patan introduced himself as well as the other members of the raiding party to those two persons and upon asking about their names, the motorcycle-borne identified himself as Ghamdaram Kesaram Godaram (Jat Chaudhary) and the person got off from the car identified himself as Khorajiya Sadikbhai Sahidbhai. Then, both the accused got acquainted with the secret information of they being indulged in the trafficking of narcotic substance and necessary procedure as per the law had also been carried out. Then, both the accused got acquainted with the secret information of they being indulged in the trafficking of narcotic substance and necessary procedure as per the law had also been carried out. 3.4 Thereafter, upon personal search of Ghamdaram Kesaram Godaram being carried out, one plastic pouch of white coloured powder and one plastic pouch of yellow coloured powder was found from the pocket of his shirt, and upon asking about the same to him by the police, he admitted it to be Mephedrone. Upon personal search of another person as well as his car, nothing incriminating was found from him or from his car. 3.5 After that, the officers of the FSL also reached there and upon testing the suspicious substance found from the white coloured plastic pouch with the drug detection kit, the same tested positive for Mephedrone weighing 3.69 grams. Then, the substance found from the yellow pouch, upon being tested with the drug detection kit, tested negative for Mephedrone, however, the same was still strongly suspected to be narcotic substance, weighing 9.41 grams and thus the total weight of the contraband substance seized was 13.10 grams. When both the accused were further asked about the contraband substance, they admitted that Khorajiya Saudbhai Sahidbhai was the recipient of the drugs whereas Ghamdaram Kesaram Godara came to deliver the same to him which he obtained from one Bhavarlal. Hence, the present FIR. 4. Learned advocate representing the applicant-accused has submitted that the applicant-accused was arrested on 20.01.2023 and since then he is in jail. Learned advocate has also submitted that in the present case, investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed. It is moreso submitted that this is the second round of litigation and the earlier bail application filed after submission of the charge-sheet was withdrawn unconditionally. It is further submitted that the main reason for filing the present application is some change in circumstances which are that the trial has already been commenced and three witnesses have already been examined, out of which, one witness has turned hostile and there are contradictions between depositions of the other two witnesses and the contents of the FIR. Therefore, considering the contradictory statement made by the witnesses who are the Panch witnesses, the applicant accused may be enlarged on bail. Therefore, considering the contradictory statement made by the witnesses who are the Panch witnesses, the applicant accused may be enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that the other co-accused, i.e., the main supplier and the recipient of the contraband article have already been enlarged on bail either by this Court or by a Coordinate Bench. Under the circumstances, learned advocate for the applicant prays that the applicant may be enlarged on bail on any suitable terms and conditions. 5. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. Learned APP has submitted that the ground on which the applicant-accused has come with the present application cannot be considered to be a change of circumstances in any manner. The applicant-accused caught red-handed by the raiding party from the spot along with the contraband substance. Therefore, considering the role attributed to the applicant-accused, this is a fit case wherein discretionary power of this Court is not required to be exercised in favour of the applicant-accused. 6. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the record. 7. Before adverting to the rival submissions, I would like to quote, with profit, some case laws on the subject. 8. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Virupakshappa Gouda and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr, reported in (2017) 5 SCC 406 } that "15. The court has to keep in mind what has been stated in Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. The requisite factors are: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; and (iii) prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, it has been opined that while exercising the power for grant of bail, the court has to keep in mind certain circumstances and factors. We may usefully reproduce the said passage: "9...among other circumstances, the factors which are to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to be believe that the accused had committed the offence. We may usefully reproduce the said passage: "9...among other circumstances, the factors which are to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to be believe that the accused had committed the offence. (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated (vii)reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail." 16. In CBI. V. Vijay Sai Reddy, the Court had reiterated the principle by observing thus:- "34. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. 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." 17. From the aforesaid principles, it is quite clear that an order of bail cannot be granted in an arbitrary or fanciful manner. In this context, we may, with profit, reproduce a passage from Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., wherein the Court setting aside an order granting bail observed: "16.The issue that is presented before us is whether this Court can annul the order passed by the High Court and curtail the liberty of the second respondent? We are not oblivious of the fact that the liberty is a priceless treasure for a human being. We are not oblivious of the fact that the liberty is a priceless treasure for a human being. It is founded on the bedrock of 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 civilized society. It is a cardinal value on which the civilisation rests. It cannot be allowed to be paralysed and immobilized. Deprivation of liberty of a person has enormous impact on his mind as well as body. A democratic body politry 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. 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 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." 9. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Satish Jaggi Vs. State of Chhatisgarh and Ors., AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 256 that; "5. It is well settled law that in granting or non-granting of bail in non-bailable offence, the primary consideration is the nature and gravity of the offence… 12. At the stage of granting of bail, the court can only go into the question of the prima-facie case established for granting bail. It is well settled law that in granting or non-granting of bail in non-bailable offence, the primary consideration is the nature and gravity of the offence… 12. At the stage of granting of bail, the court can only go into the question of the prima-facie case established for granting bail. It cannot go into the question of credibility and reliability of the witnesses put up by the prosecution. The question of credibility and reliability of prosecution witnesses can only be tested during the trial." 10. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Gurucharan Singh & Others Vs. State, AIR 1978 SC 179 (1) that: "29. We may repeat the two paramount considerations, viz. likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with prosecution evidence relate to ensuring a fair trial of the case in a court of justice. It is essential that due and proper weight should be bestowed on these two factors apart from others. There cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. The facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or cancelling bail." 11. Coming back to the controversy involved in the matter, it appears from the materials available on record that this is a second attempt on the part of the applicant-accused within a very short span of time since the withdrawal of the first application on the ground of so called change of circumstances which is in the nature of contradictory version given by the witnesses in their depositions as compared to what has been alleged in the FIR and stated by them in their statements recorded by the police. The contradiction attempted to be made a ground for bail is with respect to narration of the weight of the narcotic substance recovered from the applicant-accused, which need not to be analyzed by the Court while deciding the bail application. There are ample evidence collected by the investigator against the applicant-accused on the basis of which ultimately charge-sheet came to be filed. The applicant-accused was caught red-handed by the members of the raiding party from the spot. Moreover, there is one similar kind of antecedent against the applicant-accused registered at Unjha police station. There are ample evidence collected by the investigator against the applicant-accused on the basis of which ultimately charge-sheet came to be filed. The applicant-accused was caught red-handed by the members of the raiding party from the spot. Moreover, there is one similar kind of antecedent against the applicant-accused registered at Unjha police station. It is also worth noting that allegations against the accused are serious in nature and accused can abscond, if the bail is granted to the accused as he is originally resident of Rajasthan. Earlier, the bail application of the applicant got withdrawn vide order dated 19.12.2023, and in the present bail application, no fresh ground has been mentioned by the accused. It also appears from the papers of the investigation that the accused was very much present at the relevant time, date and place/spot. The applicant-accused was the person from whose conscious possession, recovery of narcotic substance was got affected. Moreover, in the present case, remaining public witnesses are yet to be examined and if the bail is granted to the accused, he can influence, threaten or pressurize the witnesses. The Court also notices that the applicant-accused seems to be a habitual offender as he has already been involved in other criminal case of the similar nature. At the time of withdrawal of the last regular bail application of the accused, the present matter was at the stage of prosecution evidence and at present, the case is also at the stage of prosecution evidence. There is no material change of circumstances after the withdrawal of the aforesaid last bail application of the accused. Grounds as mentioned in the present bail application of the accused were already available with the accused at the time of deciding the previous regular bail application of the accused. It is well settled law that successive bail applications can be filed on change of facts or circumstances of the case. Where the grounds taken in successive bail applications already agitated by the Court, the same cannot be ordinarily allowed to be reagitated. 12. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of offence, nature of serious allegations levelled against the accused and stage of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground for regular bail of the accused is made out. Accordingly, the present application for regular bail is rejected. Rule is discharged. 13. 12. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of offence, nature of serious allegations levelled against the accused and stage of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground for regular bail of the accused is made out. Accordingly, the present application for regular bail is rejected. Rule is discharged. 13. Nothing stated herein shall tantamount to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the present case and the observations made in the present order are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail application.