VAIDYA, J. ( 1 ) (RULE. Mr. D. N. Patel, the learned A. P. P. appearing for the respondent-State waives service of the Rule. Heard Mr. P. D. Shah, the learned Advocate appearing for the. petitioner and Mr. D. N. Patel, the learned a. P. P.) 1. The petitioner-Arvind Natvarlal Soni, who came to be arrested in connection with C. R. No. 335 of 1983, registered at Junagadh City Police station for the alleged offence punishable under Sec. 66 (l) (b) of the Bombay prohibition Act, 1949 (for short prohibition Act), on the charge of having been found in possession of chalam (pipe) and charas weighing 0. 5 grams, which subsequently came to be modified and substituted as offence punishable under Sec. 27 (a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short narcotics Act), has by this Application moved this Court for getting himself released on bail, challenging the impugend judgment and order, dated 3-4-1992, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Junagadh, whereby his bail application came to be rejected. ( 2 ) FEW Relevant Facts : The prosecution case as alleged in the F. I. R. is to the effect that on 19-7-1988 at about 2-00 a. m. when P. S. I. Chudasama was on a night-patrolling round in Junagadh City, he found the petitioner in a suspicious condition and on making inquiry and taking physical search of him, one chalam (pipe) and a small pallet of charas weighing about 0. 5 grams were found from his possession for which he had neither any pass nor permit nor any explanation. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, after drawing necessary Panchnama, a complaint came to be filed as C. R. No. III-335 of 1988 at Junagadh City Police Station. Thereafter, the petitioner was produced before the learned Magistrate, who in turn was pleased to release him on bail. After the investigation of the case was over, the Police submitted a chargesheet on 20-11-1988 against the petitioner to stand trial for the aforesaid offence before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 5930 of 1988. After the investigation of the case was over, the Police submitted a chargesheet on 20-11-1988 against the petitioner to stand trial for the aforesaid offence before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 5930 of 1988. It further appears that on 31-3-1992, after about 4 years of the alleged incident, on the learned Magistrate taking a view that the offence alleged against the petitioner being under Sec. 27 of the Narcotics Act, he was required to be taken into custody and accordingly he was ordered to be re-arrested. This order of the learned Magistrate was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Junagadh, by filing Misc. Criminal Application No. 332 of 1991, which as stated above, came to be rejected by an order dated 3-4-1992, giving rise to the present bail application. ( 3 ) MR. P. D. Shah, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner while pressing hard for the bail of the petitioner, has highlighted and pressed into service the following circumstances to be taken into consideration for releasing the petitioner on bail. They are ; - 1. That the alleged incident wherein the petitioner was found in possession of chalam (pipe) and charas weighing about 0. 5 grams only, took place long back about 4 years on 19-7-1988 (Emphasis supplied ). 2. That immediately after the arrest on 19-7-1988 the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail and since then he was at large. 3. That in between the period, that is to say. from 19-7-1988 till the date on which the petitioner was once again taken into custody on 31-3-1992, he is not alleged to have abused his liberty while on bail by repeating the same or similar offence. 4. That the case of the Investigating Agency itself in column No. 5 of the chargesheet, at its highest best, is to the effect that chalam (pipe) and charas which were found from possession of the petitioner were for his personal use and consumption only. This only means at this stage that the case of the petitioner squarely fell within the ambit of Sec. 27 (a) of Narcotics Act, for which the sentence provided is only one year or fine or both. 5. This only means at this stage that the case of the petitioner squarely fell within the ambit of Sec. 27 (a) of Narcotics Act, for which the sentence provided is only one year or fine or both. 5. That the petitioner has got roots in the soil inasmuch as he is living with his family in Junagadh City since last many years and therefore he was not likely to abscond. 6. That the petitioner is the only earning member of his family. 7. That the wife of the petitioner is suffering from TB and there was none to take care of her health. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Shah further urged that assuming without admitting that there exists some prima facie case against the petitioner under the Narcotics Act, even then having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances streamlined above, there indeed was no justifiable ground for the learned Magistrate to cancel the earlier bail and take the petitioner back in custody once again after about four long years. Mr. Shah under the circumstances finally urged that this is one of the fittest case wherein the petitioner easily deserves to be released on bail on mere asking for it. ( 4 ) MR. D. N. Patel, the learned A. P. P. while opposing this bail application vehemently submitted that the offence alleged against the petitioner was under the Narcotics Act and in that particular view of the matter, the learned sessions Judge was perfectly justified in not showing any leniency towards the petitioner by refusing to grant the bail. Mr. Patel further submitted that unless the Courts also come down heavily upon such offenders under the Narcotics Act by taking strictest possible view of the matter, it is indeed not possible to eradicate this cancerous evil from the society. Mr. Patel finally urged that there were no justifiable reasons to interfere with the order of the learned Sessions Judge, rejecting the petitioners bail application. ( 5 ) BROADLY speaking, the learned A. P. P. is quite right in his aforesaid general submissions, but at the same time, turning to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, it must at once be stated that he has not been able to dispute and distinguish the first four tell-tale circumstances in favour of the petitioner quite rightly highlighted and pressed in service by mr. Shah. Shah. Undoubtedly, the offence under Narcotics Act are serious offences and in that view of the matter, the same should not be countenanced lightly. But at the same time, while considering such bail applications, the quantum of sentence and/or any other such relevant circumstances which have a direct bearing on the reasonable exercise of discretion in favour of the accused to release him on bail cannot be ignored merely because the offence alleged against the accused is under the Narcotics Act. For example, in the instance case, admittedly, the petitioner was arrested and released on bail about four years back for having been found in possession of a very negligible quantity of charas and chalam (pipe) allegedly for his personal use and consumption, for which the sentence provided for is one year or fine etc. etc. This indeed are the most relevant circumstances which no Court can ever afford to treat it lightly by refusing the bail merely because the offence alleged against the petitioner is one under the Narcotics Act. No doubt, it is true that if any person is found to be in possession of Narcotic drugs even of a small quantity in contravention of the provisions of the Narcotics Act, then in order to avail of the benefit of lighter sentence, under Sec. 27 (2) of the Narcotics act, he is further required to prove that the muddamal in question was for his personal use and consumption and not for sale or distribution. It is equally, to some extent true, that the stage regarding petitioner proving the case of personal use and consumption has not yet come and in that view of the matter, the said circumstance should not ordinarily be taken into consideration. But then, taking into consideration the fact that when prosecution itself in the chargesheet is coming out with a definite case that of the petitioner was found in possession of "chalam" (pipe) and charas weighing about 0. 5 grams for his personal use and consumption, prima facie there remains nothing which requires to be proved by the petitioner at the stage of the trial. Under the circumstances, it would be indeed too harsh and simply unjust to deny the bail of the petitioner more particularly looking to the ever increasing pressure of work in the Courts delaying the trial. Under the circumstances, it would be indeed too harsh and simply unjust to deny the bail of the petitioner more particularly looking to the ever increasing pressure of work in the Courts delaying the trial. In such cases, if the bails are refused taking into consideration the short sentence it is very likely that the petitioner may serve out the entire period of sentence by the time trial takes place and further for what ought was know that if ultimately petitioner is found to be either falsely implicated or gets acquitted for want of reliable evidence or say even while recording conviction. Court take a view of impossing the sentence of fine only he would indeed be seriously prejudiced in as much by serving out the pretrial punishment on account of refusal of the bail. This indeed cannot be permitted. There are cases and cases, therefore, merely because an accused is alleged to have committed offence under Narcotics Act that by itself, irrespective of other attending circumstances, should not be permitted to obscure and blinden the judicial vision in exercising its just and reasonable discretion in favour of the accused. The difference between the preventive detention and regular trial and reasonable right of bail depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case must be borne in mind. Accordingly, petitioner deserves to be released on bail. ( 6 ) IN the result, this application is allowed. The petitioner is allowed to be released on bail in sum of Rs. 5,000. 00 (Rupees Five Thousand) and two sureties of the like amount with further conditions, viz. , that (1) he shall report at Junagadh City Police Station on first day of every month till the trial is over, and (2) he shall not abuse his liberty either by way of repeating the same and/or similar offences in future and/or temper with the prosecution evidence. Trial to be expedited. Rule made absolute. .