JUDGMENT : Sushil Kukreja, J. The instant bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short “ BNSS ”) for grant of bail in case FIR No. 71 of 2023, dated 05.05.2023, under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short “NDPS Act”), registered at Police Station Manali, District Kullu, H.P. 2. The facts giving rise to the instant petition can be summarized as under: 2(a). On 04.05.2023, the police party was on patrolling duty and around 10:00 p.m., when they were present near Jeep Union, Bhootnath Mandir Manali, they received a secret information that near Hotel Hillans, Vishavdeep @ Aalla (petitioner herein), who was residing in the building of one Prem Singh Thakur, as a tenant, was doing illegal trade of chitta/heroin and if his room was searched, huge quantity of chitta/heroin could be recovered. Acting upon the aforesaid information, the police party reached near Hotel Hillans and associated Prem Singh Thakur and Parvesh as independent witnesses in the proceedings. In presence of the aforesaid witnesses, the police party entered the room of Vishavdeep @ Aalla and on seeing the police party, he got perplexed. Thereafter, the police conducted search of his room and found a bag. On opening the bag, the police found a packet wrapped with silver foil, which was containing some whitish and yellowish granule like powder and some solid yellowish substance. The recovered substance was found to be chitta/heroin, which on weighment was found to be 266 grams. After completion of all the codal formalities, petitioner Vishavdeep @ Aalla was arrested and investigation commenced. 3. The bail application has been filed on the ground that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in judicial custody for the last more than two years and ten months and if he is not enlarged on bail, his entire life will be ruined. He further contended that there is inordinate delay in conclusion of trial, which infringes upon the right of speedy trial of the petitioner, as such, he is entitled to be released on bail on the ground that his right of speedy trial has been violated. 4. He further contended that there is inordinate delay in conclusion of trial, which infringes upon the right of speedy trial of the petitioner, as such, he is entitled to be released on bail on the ground that his right of speedy trial has been violated. 4. Per contra, the learned Deputy Advocate General opposed the bail application on the ground that keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and quantity of the recovered contraband, i.e. commercial quantity, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. He further contended that the present bail application filed by the petitioner is the successive one, which is liable to be dismissed as there is no change in circumstances after the dismissal of the earlier bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and also carefully gone through the material available on record. 6. Pertinently, the present is the successive bail application filed by the petitioner. Earlier, the petitioner had preferred bail application being Cr. MP(M) No. 1800 of 2024 seeking regular bail before this Court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 17.12.2024. 7. It is a well settled principle of law that when the successive bail application comes before the Court, the Court would be very conscious while considering the same. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao , AIR 1989 SC 2292 , that successive bail application can be entertained by the Court when substantial change is established by the accused, which would entitle him for getting bail in successive bail application. The Court should not pass the order of releasing the accused on bail in successive bail application merely establishing some cosmetic change between time gap of two applications. There should be drastic change during the period between two applications, which would entitle the accused for bail. 8. In State of M.P vs. Kajad (2001) 7 SCC 673 Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically considered that when there are no changed circumstances, the successive bail application is nothing but review of the earlier application which cannot be maintainable. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: “8. It has further to be noted that the factum of the rejection of his earlier bail application bearing Misc. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: “8. It has further to be noted that the factum of the rejection of his earlier bail application bearing Misc. case No. 2052 of 2000 on 5.6.2000 has not been denied by the respondent. It is true that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances. But without the change in the circumstances the second application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier judgment which is not permissible under criminal law as has been held by this Court in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa ( (2001) 1 SCC 169 ) and various other judgments.” 9. In State of Tamilnadu vs. S.A.Raja (2005) 8 SCC 380 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: “9. When a learned Single Judge of the same Court had denied bail to the respondent for certain reasons and that order was unsuccessfully challenged before the appellate forum, without there being any major change of circumstances, another fresh application should not have been dealt with within a short span of time unless there were valid grounds giving rise to a tenable case for bail. Of course, the principles of res judicata are not applicable to bail applications, but the repeated filing of the bail applications without there being any change of circumstances would lead to bad precedents.” 10. In the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar,vs Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7SCC 528 Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: “20. "Before concluding, we must note though an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, the Court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected. In such cases, the Court also has a duty to record what are the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications " 11. In Virupakshappa Gouda & another vs. State of Karnataka and another (2017) 5 Supreme Court Cases 406 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: “12. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Judge, we find that he has been swayed by the factum that when a charge-sheet is filed it amounts to change of circumstance. Needless to Say, filing of the charge-sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Judge, we find that he has been swayed by the factum that when a charge-sheet is filed it amounts to change of circumstance. Needless to Say, filing of the charge-sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution. On the contrary, filing of the charge- sheet establishes that after due investigation the investigating agency, having found materials, has placed the charge- sheet for trial of the accused persons. As is further demonstrable, the learned trial Judge has remained absolutely oblivious of the fact that the appellants had moved the special leave petition before this Court for grant of bail and the same was not entertained. Be it noted, the second bail application was filed before the Principal Sessions Judge after filing of the charge-sheet which was challenged in the High Court and that had travelled to this Court. These facts, unfortunately, have not been taken note of by the learned trial Judge……..” 12. A perusal of the aforementioned judgments indicates that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances, but the change of circumstances must be substantial one, which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence. Without the change in the circumstances, the subsequent bail application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier rejection order, which is not permissible under criminal law. While entertaining such subsequent bail applications, the Court has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail application was rejected and what are the fresh grounds which persuade it warranting the evaluation and consideration of the bail application afresh and to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application. There must be change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. 13. In the instant case, after the dismissal of the earlier bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any substantial change in the circumstances which would entitle the petitioner to file the present application. Therefore, in absence of any changed circumstances, the present successive application for bail cannot be entertained 14. 13. In the instant case, after the dismissal of the earlier bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any substantial change in the circumstances which would entitle the petitioner to file the present application. Therefore, in absence of any changed circumstances, the present successive application for bail cannot be entertained 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the petitioner is in custody since 05.05.2023 and the trial in the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, as out of total 15 witnesses cited by the prosecution, till date, only 07 witnesses have been examined, therefore, he deserves to be released on bail on the ground of delay in trial. However, mere fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than two years and ten months is no ground to grant him bail, as the quantity of chitta/heroin, recovered from the petitioner is 266 grams, which is a commercial quantity. Although, Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees speedy trial and an under trial prisoner cannot be detained in jail/custody for an indefinite period, but, mere period of incarceration or the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future cannot entitle the petitioner to be enlarged on bail, as the petitioner is prima facie found involved in a serious offence of illicit trade of drugs. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported in Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2007) 1 SCC 242 has held that when the gravity of offence alleged is severe, mere period of incarceration or the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future cannot entitle the petitioner to be enlarged on bail. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "16……………It is true that when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe, mere period of incarceration or the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or conjointly may not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail. Nevertheless, both these factors may also be taken into consideration while deciding the question of grant of bail." (Emphasis supplied) 16. In the case of State of Bihar and another Vs. Nevertheless, both these factors may also be taken into consideration while deciding the question of grant of bail." (Emphasis supplied) 16. In the case of State of Bihar and another Vs. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai (2017) 13 SCC 751 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that where there is seriousness of the offence, the mere fact that the accused is languishing in jail during trial should not be the concern of the courts. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "8. A bare reading of the order impugned discloses that the High Court has not given any reasoning while granting bail. In a mechanical way, the High Court granted bail more on the fact that the accused is already in custody for a long time. When the seriousness of the offence is such the mere fact that he was in jail for however long time should not be the concern of the courts. We are not able to appreciate such a casual approach while granting bail in a case which has the effect of undermining the trust of people in the integrity of the education system in the State of Bihar." 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528 (Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another) has held that three years incarceration would not itself entitle the accused-applicant to be released on bail nor the fact that the trial is not likelihood to be concluded in near future would be sufficient for enlarging the accused-applicant on bail considering the gravity of offence. Paragraph-14 of the said judgment, which is relevant, is extracted hereunder:- "14. We have already noticed from the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant that the present accused had earlier made seven applications for grant of bail which were rejected by the High Court and some such rejections have been affirmed by this Court also. Paragraph-14 of the said judgment, which is relevant, is extracted hereunder:- "14. We have already noticed from the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant that the present accused had earlier made seven applications for grant of bail which were rejected by the High Court and some such rejections have been affirmed by this Court also. It is seen from the records that when the fifth application for grant of bail was allowed by the High Court, the same was challenged before this Court and this Court accepted the said challenge by allowing the appeal filed by the Union of India and another and cancelled the bail granted by the High Court as per the order of this Court made in Criminal Appeal No. 745 of 2001 dated 25-7- 2001 [Rajesh Ranjan v. State of Bihar, (2000) 9 SCC 222 ] . While cancelling the said bail this Court specifically held that the fact that the present accused was in custody for more than one year (at that time) and the further fact that while rejecting an earlier application, the High Court had given liberty to renew the bail application in future, were not grounds envisaged under Section 437(1)(i) of the Code. This Court also in specific terms held that the condition laid down under Section 437(1)(i) is sine qua non for granting bail even under Section 439 of the Code. In the impugned order it is noticed that the High Court has given the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused and the unlikelihood of trial concluding in the near future as grounds sufficient to enlarge the accused on bail, in spite of the fact that the accused stands charged of offences punishable with life imprisonment or even death penalty. In such cases, in our opinion, the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of incarceration (three years in this case) by itself would not entitle the accused to being enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the appellant on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the accused during the period he was on bail." 18. Thus when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe, mere long incarceration in jail as under-trial is not sufficient ground to enlarge an accused on bail if the facts & circumstances of the case and interest of the society do not warrant for enlarging the accused-applicant on bail. In the instant case, the trial is in progress and the case is being listed for recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses and out of total 15 witnesses cited by the prosecution, 07 witnesses have already been examined and the next date has been fixed for the remaining evidence of the prosecution on 29.04.2026. Hence, there is every likelihood of the trial being concluded in near future. In these circumstances, it is apparent that the trial is proceeding with due expedition and it cannot be said that there is such delay as would warrant bail. Therefore, mere fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than two years and ten months is no ground to grant him bail. 19. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that after the dismissal of the earlier bail application, there is no substantial change in the circumstances which would entitle the petitioner to file the present application. Therefore, in absence of any changed circumstances, the present successive application for bail cannot be entertained. Hence, for the reasons mentioned above, the bail application filed by the petitioner is dismissed. 20. Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court will not be influenced by any observations made therein.