ORDER 1. SPECIAL LEAVE GRANTED. 2. IN SPITE OF ISSUANCE OF NON-BAILABLE WARRANTS BY THIS COURT, IT HAS NOT BEEN POSSIBLE FOR THE UNION OF INDIA AND THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL TO APPREHEND THE RESPONDENT. IT APPEARS THAT IT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE TO TRACE HIM IMMEDIATELY AS IT IS APPREHENDED THAT HE MAY HAVE CROSSED THE INDIAN FRONTIERS. 3. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, DESPITE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE AND ISSUANCE OF NON-BAILABLE WARRANTS OF ARREST, THE RESPONDENT HAS NOT APPEARED IN THIS COURT AND, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO HEAR HIM. 4. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HAVE EXAMINED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT. IT APPEARS THAT THE HIGH COURT WHILE GRANTING BAIL TO THE RESPONDENT WAS OBLIVIOUS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37 OF THE NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 AND THE BAIL HAS BEEN GRANTED MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO PROSPECT OF EARLY HEARING OF THE APPEAL. WE HAVE NOTICED IN SEVERAL CASES BEFORE THIS COURT THAT IN AN OFFENCE OF THIS NATURE, WHERE A FOREIGNER IS INVOLVED, OR WHERE THE OFFENCE IS COMMITTED IN A STATE ADJOINING THE NATIONAL FRONTIERS, AFTER GRANT OF BAIL IT BECOMES DIFFICULT TO TRACE OUT THE ACCUSED. THEREFORE, THE COURTS SHOULD BE CIRCUMSPECT IN GRANTING BAIL IN CASES OF THIS NATURE. 5. HAVING PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT, WE FIND THAT THE SAME IS IN DISREGARD OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS. THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT GRANTING BAIL TO THE RESPONDENT IS, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE. THE APPELLANT IS DIRECTED TO TAKE ALL NECESSARY STEPS TO APPREHEND THE RESPONDENT SO THAT THE HIGH COURT MAY BE ABLE TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 6. THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED ACCORDINGLY.