ORDER 1.Leave granted. 2. The Union of India assails the order of the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court granting bail to the accused-respondent who has been found to be involved in commission of offence under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the Act"). 3. It is contended by the learned Additional Solicitor General that while considering the question of grant of bail, the High Court did not bear in mind the provisions of Section 37 of the Act which are mandatory and, therefore, the impugned order must be held to be unsustainable in law. 4. When notice was issued from this Court, the accused-respondent did not appear notwithstanding due service of notice, and therefore, the Court had to take recourse to issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest pursuant to which he has been arrested and is now in custody. 5. On a bare perusal of the impugned order of the High Court, we are satisfied that the High Court has not borne in mind the provisions of Section 37 of the Act before releasing the accused-respondent on bail. We, therefore, set aside the said order and allow this appeal. We direct that the trial be concluded expeditiously. (ii) Terminating the distributorship of those dealers who refuse to lift the excess quantities thus refusing to deal with them besides causing financial burden." 3. So far as the first aspect is concerned, the finding recorded is that the appellant had indulged in a restrictive trade practice of dumping goods on the distributors. However, on the second aspect it has been held by the Commission that the appellant had not indulged in the restrictive trade practice of refusal to deal with its distributors/stockists. We will assume for the purpose of this case without examining the matter any further that the finding on the first aspect recorded by the Commission is correct. Even so, in view of the finding recorded on the second aspect of the matter that the appellant had not indulged in a restrictive trade practice of refusal to deal with the distributors, we fail to understand as to how the charge is established. The thrust of the charge is that the distributorship will be put to an end if the appellant does not deal with all the quantity of goods that are dumped upon the distributors/stockists. The thrust of the charge is that the distributorship will be put to an end if the appellant does not deal with all the quantity of goods that are dumped upon the distributors/stockists. Therefore, when there is no proof of the fact that there is refusal to deal with them we find it difficult to accept that there has been any indulgence of restrictive trade practice as alleged in the matter. In the circumstances, the order made by the Commission is set aside. The appeal is allowed accordingly.