Judgment J.R. Goyal, J.-This is an application under Section 439(2) Criminal Procedure Code filed by the Central Bureau of Narcotics, Union of India for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent-accused by the Special Judge. N.D.P.S. Act Cases cum Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kota on 28.06.2006 in Special Sessions Case No. 2/04 for the offence under Sections 8/18 and 8/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 2. In brief the prosecution case was that a team of Narcotics Bureau, Kota intercepted a Maruti car on 27.09.2006 at 1300 hours near Anantpura petrol pump and seized 12 kg. of contraband opium and 40 gm. heroin contained in 11 packets. Ashok Kumar and Jaswant Singh, who were travelling in the car were interrogated and it was found that one Shrichand Sharma, who was the owner of said car, had purchased the contraband substance from one Harnam Singh through the respondent-accused Ramkaran, on a telephone deal, and had sent Ashok Kumar and Jaswant Singh to Jhalrapatan to fetch the said contraband substance. Further case of the prosecution is that respondent-accused Ramkaran, after purchasing the opium and heroin, handed it over to his brother-in-law, Deepchand for safe custody, who kept the bag in the soyabean field of Bajranglal, situated at the backside of his dhaba. Respondent-accused Ramkaran, accompanied by Satyanarain, Ashok Kumar and Jaswant Singh came to the dhaba of Deepchand in the intervening night of 26.09.2003 and 27.09.2003 and after taking the bag from Deepchand, respondent-accused Ramkaran concealed the contraband substance in a secret chamber of the said car and then Ashok Kumar and Jaswant Singh started from there at 5.00 A.M. and were intercepted and caught with the contraband opium and heroin. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record and the material produced during the course of arguments. 4. It was contended that the Special Judge, while granting bail to the respondent-accused did not take into consideration the provisions of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, nor any satisfaction was recorded to the effect that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the respondent-accused was not guilty of such offence, whereas there were ample material on record including the statements recorded under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act from which it was clear that the respondent-accused was directly linked with the recovery of contraband opium and heroin, which were in commercial quantity. Reliance was placed on the Judgment rendered in Customs New Delhi vs. Ahmadalieva Nodira, 2004 (1) WLC (SC) Cri 572 = 2003-04 CrLR (SC) (Suppl) 142. It was also contended that the coordinate Bench of this Court while considering the bail application of Deepchand (S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 5063) it was categorically observed that respondent-accused Ramkaran has been released on bail by the trial Court against the mandatory provisions contained in Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It was further contended that the respondent-accused is a man of criminal antecedents and is still behind the bars due to his involvement in some other serious criminal matter. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-accused contended that after having considered the entire material and by a reasoned order the trial Court had thought it proper to release him on bail. It was also contended that parameters of granting bail are different from that for cancelling of the bail. It was further contended that it is not the case of prosecution that after the bail, respondent-accused had misused the liberty granted to him by the trial Court. Reliance has been placed on the Judgment s rendered in Aslam Babalal Desai vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1993 SC 1 , and in Samarendra Nath Bhattacharjee vs. State of W.B. & Anr., 2004 (2) WLC (SC) Cri 630 = 2004 (11) SCC 165 , wherein general grounds for cancellation of bail have been laid down. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and the authorities relied upon. From the perusal of charge-sheet it appears that respondent-accused Ramkaran has been allegedly shown to be involved in an offence relating to trafficking of contraband psychotropic substance, which was of commercial quantity. It would be appropriate to take note of the provisions of Section 37 NDPS Act, which read as under "Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).- .(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; .(b) nopersons accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless.- .(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release. and .(ii) where the public prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. .(2) The limitation on granting of bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail". 7. According to the provisions of Section 37, in an offence related to the contraband substance of commercial quantity, the bail can only be granted after giving opportunity to the Public Prosecutor of hearing and after recording satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The conditions are cumulative. 8. It has been laid down in the Judgment rendered in Customs, New Delhi (Supra) that the expression "reasonable grounds" means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. But in the case at hand, the Special Judge seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37. He did not take note of the confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act and the statements of other co-accused persons, during the course of enquiry recorded under Section 67 of the Act, which were also evident from the order dated 28.06.2006 of the learned Special Judge and subsequent order dated 22.07.2006, which was passed on the application filed by the Union of India, Central Bureau of Narcotics under Section 439(2) Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 37 N.D.P.S. Act. 9. In the aforesaid background, specially when the trial Court also did not record any satisfaction to the effect that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the respondent-accused was not guilty of the aforesaid offence, the grant of bail to the respondent-accused was not called for. Accordingly, this bail cancellation application is allowed and the impugned order granting bail is set aside and the bail granted is cancelled. 10. It is said that the respondent-accused is in jail in some other case. Accordingly, this bail cancellation application is allowed and the impugned order granting bail is set aside and the bail granted is cancelled. 10. It is said that the respondent-accused is in jail in some other case. However, the trial Court is directed to ensure that if the respondent-accused is not in judicial custody then directions be issued immediately to the respondent-accused to surrender within a period of ten days, failing which the trial Court shall take steps for his judicial custody. 11. It is made clear that no final opinion on the merit of the case has been expressed in this order and the trial Court shall not in any way be influenced while deciding the case on merit.