Sanjay Dhar JUDGMENT
Sanjay Dhar, J.
1. FIR No. 174/2019 for offences under Sections 8/20 NDPS Act came to be registered by the Police of Police Station, Bhaderwah, on the basis of an information received from the reliable sources to the effect that one person namely Usman Ahmed, petitioner herein was in possession of charas for its illicit trade. The investigation of the case was entrusted to SDPO, Bhaderwah. During investigation of the case, 183 gms of charas was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Its sample was taken and sent to the FSL for chemical examination. Upon receipt of the report of FSL and completion of investigation, offences under Sections 8/20 NDPS Act were found established against the petitioner and challan was filed against him.
2. It appears that the petitioner had filed an application for grant of bail in his favour in the aforesaid FIR before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Bhaderwah, and the same was rejected by the Court vide order dated 17.06.2020. Being aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner has filed the instant petition before this Court for grant of bail in his favour on the grounds that the contraband allegedly shown to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner is an intermediate quantity, as such, the rigor of Section 37 NDPS Act will not apply to the present case; that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case; that due to outbreak of Covid-19 infection, there is no possibility of immediate functioning of the trial Court, as such, prosecution would not be able to produce the witnesses; that the challan has already been produced before the trial Court; that all the witnesses cited in the challan are official witnesses, therefore, there is no chance of petitioner influencing them and that the petitioner is ready to abide by all terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Court in the event of grant of bail in his favour.
3. The respondent has resisted the bail petition by filing its reply thereto. In its reply, the respondent has contended that 183 gms of charas has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner/accused; that on the basis of evidence collected during the course of investigation, offences punishable under Sections 8/20 of NDPS Act were found established against the petitioner/accused; that the offences committed by the petitioner/accused are serious, grave and heinous in nature; that the petitioner/accused is involved in commission of non-bailable offence under the NDPS Act as intermediate quantity of contraband has been seized from his possession, as such, he does not deserve the concession of bail at this stage.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. As already noted, in the instant case, learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bhaderwah, has rejected the bail petition of the petitioner. The question that arises for consideration is whether or not successive bail applications will lie before this Court. The law on this issue is very clear that if an earlier application was rejected by an inferior court, the superior court can always entertain the successive bail application. In this behalf, I am supported by the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case titled Gurcharan Singh & Ors. vs. State (Delhi Administration), MANU/SC/0420/1978 : AIR 1978 SC 179 which has been followed by the Bombay High Court in the case of Devi Das Raghu Nath Naik v. State, (1987 Crimes Volume 3 page 363). Thus, the rejection of a bail application by Sessions Court does not operate as a bar for the High Court in entertaining a similar application under Section 439 Cr. P. C on the same facts and for the same offence.
6. Coming to the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bhaderwah, whereby t........