JUDGMENT 1. - This second bail application has been moved by accused petitioner Rajendra Kumar in FIR No. 8/98 registered under Section 8/29 NDPS Act, 1985. While deciding the first bail application of the petitioner, this court had observed that there does not bear any good ground to grant the bail to petitioner under Section 349 Cr.PC. 2. The petitioner has moved this second bail application on the ground that co-accused Vijendra Singh was granted bail by this court vide order dated 27.10.98 (passed by Hon. Justice Mr. M.A.A. Khan) and this fact could not be brought into notice of this court at the time of making submission in first bail application of the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner has also canvassed that the statement of petitioner alleged to have been recorded u/s 67 of NDPS Act were recorded after institution of FIR, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. Learned counsel has also submitted that this court released the accused-petitioner in another case FIR No. 4/99 on the similar ground. The contention of counsel for petitioner is that in the FIR No. 4/99 two arguments were advanced on behalf of the petitioner first was in respect of Section 67 NDPS Act and the second was that the case of petitioner was not distinguishable to the case of co-accused and while considering both the arguments, this court released the petitioner on bail. 3. Learned P.R opposed the bail application u/s 37 of NDPS Act and contended that while granting bail to co-accused Vijendra no opportunity of hearing was provided to PR It was also contended that the bail application of petitioner in FIR No. 4/99 the PR of State of Rajasthan did appear and no opportunity of hearing was provided to PR of Union of India. It is further argued that relevancy of statements recorded u/s 67 NDPS Act can be seen during trial as is held by their Lordships of Supreme Court in case of Naresh v. Union of India ( AIR 1996 SC 522 ) and by this court in bail application No. 2566/2000 decided on 18.8.2000. 4. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 5. 4. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 5. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in case Naresh (supra) has indicated that the statement of accused recorded u/s 67 NDPS Act can be used as substantive case connecting the accused in contravention of provisions of NDPS Act. Even the statement of co-accused recorded u/s 67 NDPS Act cannot be termed as statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC. This court after placing reliance on the judgment in case of Naresh (supra) decided the bail application No. 2566/2000 observing that relevance of statement recorded u/s 67 NDPS Act can be appreciated during trial. 6. I have carefully perused the order of this court dated 27.10.98 in bail application No. 4931/98 granting bail to co-accused Vijendra. It appears that the said bail application was decided in absence of learned PR Under Section 37 NDPS Act no person accused of an offence punishable of imprisonment for five years or more under NDPS Act can be released on bail unless the PP has been given opportunity to oppose the bail application. I do not want to express my opinion as to whether learned PP for the Union of India was provided an opportunity of hearing or not, but a look of the order demonstrates, that learned PP did not appear at the time of deciding the bail application. 7. While granting bail to petitioner in FIR No. 4/99 my attention was not brought towards the ratio of Naresh (supra) and the bail application was not decided by me on the basis of said authority. Even the learned PP on behalf of Union of India did not appear and the state was represented by the PP for the State of Rajasthan Therefore, I am unable to place reliance on the earlier decision of this court. Learned PR for the Union of India if he so chooses may move for cancellation of bail. 8. In the instant case the first bail application was dismissed on merits and I am not inclined to re appreciate evidence. I am satisfied that it is not a fit case for granting bail to the accused petitioner. 9. With the above observations, this Misc. second bail application stands dismissed. *******