C. K. BUCH, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Service of Rule is waived by ld. APP Mr. KT Dave for respondent No. 1 State. ( 2 ) THE applicant who is accused No. 1 has been convicted by the ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City, Court No. 2, Ahmedabad vide judgment dated 28. 05. 2004 in Sessions Case No. 252/2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 20 (b) (2), 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act ). He has been imposed R/i for 5 Years and a fine of Rs. 50,000/, I/d to undergo further R/i for 6 Months by the ld. trial Court. ( 3 ) (I)IT is submitted by ld. counsel Mr. Barejia for the applicant accused that this case being the case of short sentence- sentence of fixed period, the applicant accused may be enlarged on bail as there is no scope of hearing of the criminal appeal as observed by the Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v/s State of Gujarat, (1999) 4 SCC 421 . Mr. Barejia has mainly submitted that the applicant is a lady and, therefore, the approach of the Court while dealing with bail application of a lady accused should be different, in view of the scheme of Sec. 437 of Crpc. Of course, as per the say of the prosecution, more than one type of prohibited substances have been recovered during the course of investigation and considering gravity, she was no granted bail pending trial. (II) it is submitted by Mr. Barejia that none of such substances can be said to be of commercial quantity. On the contrary, by placing concerned Schedule, Mr. Barejia has pointed out that the same were in a small quantity and hence embargo of Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act would not come in the way of this Court while dealing with the bail application of the present applicant accused. Original accused No. 2 was allegedly found in possession of small quantity of Charas i. e. 650 ml. gms. , has been acquitted by the ld. trial Judge. His acquittal may go to the root of the validity of the present applicant accused qua sec. 29 of the NDPS Act. So, when the applicant has fairly arguable case, then discretion should be exercised in favour of the applicant accused. gms. , has been acquitted by the ld. trial Judge. His acquittal may go to the root of the validity of the present applicant accused qua sec. 29 of the NDPS Act. So, when the applicant has fairly arguable case, then discretion should be exercised in favour of the applicant accused. ( 4 ) MR. KT Dave, ld. APP appearing for the respondent State has strongly resisted the bail plea and his resistance is mainly on three points. The first point is that it would not be proper for the Court to conclude at this stage that Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted in the present case as the accused has been held guilty and especially when there is an element of illicit trafficking of prohibited narcotic drugs and/or psychotropic substances. More than one variety of such substances/articles in a single raid has been recovered by the investigating agency. So, there is an element of gravity and seriousness and that too for the offence punishable under the NDPS Act. It is also submitted by ld. APP Mr. Dave that in such cases, the accused whether is a male or female should not be considered to be a matter of much relevance and when residential house of the present applicant was raided, large sum in cash were found and recovered. It has been pointed out by ld. APP Mr. Dave from the panchanama relevant document admitted in evidence during the course of the trial that currency notes found are of different denomination and even coins were also found in large quantity. It is rightly submitted that a variety of weights and measures instruments that are recovered by the raiding party, becomes relevant. The say of the prosecution is that the house belongs to present applicant and she was in conscious possession of the premises when raided. Of course, the say of Mr. Barejia is otherwise. Mr. Dave has also pointed out that pending trial, the applicant was not enlarged on bail and, therefore, case of a person who is on bail pending trial should be considered differently than of a person who is refused bail pending trial. Mr. Dave has also expressed an apprehension that if applicant is granted bail, it is likely that she may involve in such or similar activities. Mr. Dave has also expressed an apprehension that if applicant is granted bail, it is likely that she may involve in such or similar activities. ( 5 ) I have gone through the impugned judgment and considered the arguments advanced by the ld. counsel appearing for the parties. In my view, there is strength in the submissions of ld. APP Mr. Dave. While rejecting the bail plea either under Sec. 437 or 439 of Crpc or after the decision of the first trial Court, the Apex Court and this Court have observed that the approach of the Court while dealing with bail plea in such or similar cases should be strict and liberal approach should not be adopted. "bail is a rule and jail is an exception" principle would not apply in such cases. In one case, of course the case was based on very grave facts, the Apex Court has observed that in certain cases, there should not be any bail irrespective of the period that has been spent by the accused/convict in the judicial custody/jail. (Achint Navnitbhai Patel v/s State of Gujarat and Ors. , (2002)10 SCC 529 and Bipin Shantilal Panchal v/s State, (2001)3 SCC P. 1 ). The ratio of the decision in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde (supra) is not to be applied mechanically in all short sentence cases. The order, therefore, of suspending substantive sentence and granting bail should be passed in the cases where it would not carry a wrong signal to the society at large. ( 6 ) SO, when this Court is called upon to exercise discretionary jurisdiction, then balance has to be struck between the personal liberty of an accused and ultimate health and tranquility of the society. It is not necessary to say anything as to the effect of circulation of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in small quantity, in the society. The apprehension expressed while developing the argument by ld. APP Mr. Dave is that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, it is likely that she may involve herself in similar type of activities and when State apprehends such involvement, then the Court while dealing with the bail plea should go very slow. Whether the apprehension expressed by ld. APP Mr. Dave can be said to be a reasonable apprehension is again a matter of appreciation. Whether the apprehension expressed by ld. APP Mr. Dave can be said to be a reasonable apprehension is again a matter of appreciation. In such a facts situation, the material recovered from the house allegedly in the occupation and possession of the applicant accused and varieties of prohibited articles/ substances seized during the course of search, has great importance and bearing and hence it would be difficult for this Court to say that apprehension expressed by ld. APP Mr. Dave is misplaced. When it is not easy to take care of any such reasonable apprehension expressed by imposing stringent conditions, the discretion may not be exercised. Traffickers in such market are able to operate even while he or she is not residing in the concerned area. ( 7 ) IN view of above, this Court is not inclined to exercise the discretion provided in Sec. 389 (2) of Crpc in favour of the applicant accused and hence present Cri. Misc. Application requires to be dismissed. ( 8 ) AT this stage, ld. counsel Mr. Barejia appearing for the applicant has submitted that when applicant accused is a lady, at least criminal appeal filed by her should be given "top" priority, in the background of the fact that she is in jail for more than 2 Years. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, request is accepted. The Registry is directed to see that paper-book of Cri. Appeal No. 986/2004 is prepared at the earliest and appropriate directions be issued to the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. R and P for the purpose of preparation of the paper-book be sent to the trial Court forthwith and on receipt of the peper-book, the Registry shall list the main criminal appeal i. e. Cri. Appeal No. 986/2004, preferably within 6 (six) months from today and, if it is convenient, even prior thereto. Directions accordingly. ( 9 ) CRI. Misc. Application for bail is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged subject to aforesaid observations and directions. Direct Service is permitted. .